8 ms·

How is entering into a voluntary contract with someone taking advantage of them? And what is your proposed solution? Amazon raise prices on the goods they sel

How is entering into a voluntary contract with someone taking advantage of them? And what is your proposed solution? Amazon raise prices on the goods they sell to their workers and the rest of the population? The government step in and coerce different forms of contracts? If you do care about this I have a suggestion - create a fund where people who feel as you do can give the money they save from shopping at Amazon (or other earnings) to these people. If you believe they are undervaluing themselves invest in them. Or place blame on companies that through voluntary exchanges are changing the world.

rayiner 13y ago
> How is entering into a voluntary contract with someone taking advantage of them? Why does the existence of a contract automatically rule out the possibility of taking advantage?
- Artistry121 13y ago
  If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. Take this trade off. I create a system whereby I can make $100 for every hour someone works. I tell you I'll pay you $10 an hour to work. If you are better off working those hours you will take it and I will receive $90 and you $10. If you won't I'm out a lot of money, so I will probably revise my offer upwards. These workers are individuals capable of making decisions. If they decide working for Amazon for $13 an hour is better than alternatives they should take it - if not they should pursue a more valuable alternative.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I understand the economics. But that doesn't answer my question: why does that rule out the possibility of taking advantage? How do you get from point A to point B? There is an implicit assumption in your thinking that I'm trying to tease out.
    - htf 13y ago
      A contract is not a zero-sum game. The expected outcome of a contract is that both parties take advantage of each other and they both win.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        That's a bizarre definition of "take advantage."
        htf 13y ago
        Then I assume you mean that one party is better off and the other party is worse off (taken advantage of). Sure, that can happen. But in the case of Amazon, the workers are better off or they wouldn't work there.
        rayiner 13y ago
        No, "taken advantage of" does not require one party to be made worse off. That is not the way the phrase is ordinarily used in the English language.
        tesmar2 13y ago
        Sure it is. If I am taken advantage of, I am not better off for it.
        mpyne 13y ago
        You could be "better off", but still have been screwed out of being "even more better off". That's still being taken advantage of. Consider the legendary story about how Steve Jobs screwed the Woz.
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        Either definition works. You can take advantage of (exploit) someone at their expense, or your can take advantage of (leverage) their capabilities to mutual gain. Frank took advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping to do his last-minute Christmas shopping
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. I think the fundamental disconnect here, is the people you are debating with believe that Amazon should have made it more advantageous for the workers, because as the workers have no other options it would be the nice thing to do.
  - ama729 13y ago
    > If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. If your grandfather gave all of his money willingly and right away to his physician, don't you feel the physician acted unethically? And don't you feel your grandfather might be impacted negatively by that decision?
mrow84 13y ago
In our society it is very difficult (though not entirely impossible) to survive without money. If you are not in a position to withhold your labour, because you have no money, then you have no bargaining power when determining your wages. In this case, a prospective employer can essentially offer you any wage they like - will that be a truly "voluntary" contract, even though you have no choice other than to accept it? Simplistic solutions like "just move elsewhere" ignore both the inherent difficulties that moving poses when you are living in poverty, and the situations encountered by many people who take that option. As a new arrival you face the prospect of high initial costs trying to find a place to live and trying to find work, on top of the living costs you would have faced anyway, coupled to the fact that you are likely to have a reduced support network to help you deal with any problems you might face, and help you get on your feet. This is all after the initial expense of actually moving. You asked your parent for a proposed solution, mine is simply for Amazon to more equitably distribute revenue within the company, to spend more on low-level wages, less on high-level wages, and less on other projects if there is a shortfall. In general I suspect that some kind of employee ownership goes quite far to alleviating many problems of this nature. As a footnote, the only sense in which a market exchange is voluntary is that all parties agreed to it, which follows from the definition, and is therefore useless: "market exchange" will suffice. It is simply a disingenuous attempt to make the idea of a market exchange sound more humane, and to suggest an absence of coercion, without ever providing evidence that this is the case.
- Artistry121 13y ago
  To your first paragraph your point only holds if there is absolutely no competition for workers (which may be the case). And yes, it still is voluntary. I once bought a phone off craigslist. It was a decent phone, worth probably $50 but I got it for $35 because the seller needed cash right away. Just because he was illiquid does not mean it was wrong of me to buy the phone from him. Or was that immoral of me and should I have been required to give him $50? I agree moving is difficult - but so is creating efficiencies like Bezos has done. If your social views include the view that life should be easy for everyone, no matter their contribution, then we have a fundamental difference in what is realistic. If that is your view though maybe a better solution would be for those with money who share your view to support those without jobs or working with Amazon (or pay them to not work for Amazon). It is very easy to ask Amazon to change their policies, but that's because it isn't your money. (It's also worth noting that Amazon is not even profitable and runs in incredibly competitive industries. And, for every dollar they have to raise in costs they need to raise in profits.) Your solution might work but has some concerns. Although the market for unskilled work is very heavily weighted towards companies the market for skilled leadership is very competitive. There is a reason top executives at Apple, Google and Amazon are paid well. Paying 10,000 workers $1 an hour more means $20,000,000 less yearly to spend on upper level talent in a highly competitive marketplace for that talent. I am pointing out the human respecting nature of the market exchange - that it respects human choice (no matter how bad or good an individuals choice may be) rather than implying the idea that someone else knows what is best. Coercion is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats". I have never heard a story of Amazon threatening someone to work for them or using physical force to entice them to take a job. Taxes, military drafts and certain types of crime are coercion - posting on a job board is not.
bluecalm 13y ago
The contract is only voluntary if both sides have other reasonable options. This is very important point and the biggest hole in American Libertarian view of the world. There is a reason slavery contracts are illegal as well as there is a reason for worker rights (wouldn't be necessary and could be negotiated for every contract by logic of voluntary contract - workers just wouldn't agree to worse conditions).
- Houshalter 13y ago
  It's still voluntary. I may have no choice but to eat food, but it isn't farmers that are forcing me to buy it.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Signing an agreement with a gun to your head is not voluntary. This is, after all, the normal complaint of the libertarian regarding the extortion of taxes, no? Well the same logic applies when the "gun" is not physically a gun: If your set of viable choices has a size of 1 then you cannot be honestly said to have any "voluntary" choice.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      As I said, the same is true of food or any other necessity. But we aren't going around claiming farmers are exploiting us. The problem with the person holding a gun to your head scenario, is that they are abusing your rights in the first place by putting a gun to your head. We don't want people to do that for various reasons. But in this scenario it isn't the employer or farmer holding the gun, it's mother nature. They are just offering assistance from that.
      - bluecalm 13y ago
        The problem with that is that you see property rights as part of "mother nature". So if one side controls all the resources and can coerce the other to w/e they please you see it as "mother nature" on the other hand when I put a gun to your head it's no longer mother nature it's "abusing rights".
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>How is entering into a voluntary contract with someone taking advantage of them? Just because the contract is voluntary does not mean it's not exploitative. See: sex workers.

rayiner 13y ago

> How is entering into a voluntary contract with someone taking advantage of them? Why does the existence of a contract automatically rule out the possibility of taking advantage?

Artistry121 13y ago
If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. Take this trade off. I create a system whereby I can make $100 for every hour someone works. I tell you I'll pay you $10 an hour to work. If you are better off working those hours you will take it and I will receive $90 and you $10. If you won't I'm out a lot of money, so I will probably revise my offer upwards. These workers are individuals capable of making decisions. If they decide working for Amazon for $13 an hour is better than alternatives they should take it - if not they should pursue a more valuable alternative.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I understand the economics. But that doesn't answer my question: why does that rule out the possibility of taking advantage? How do you get from point A to point B? There is an implicit assumption in your thinking that I'm trying to tease out.
  - htf 13y ago
    A contract is not a zero-sum game. The expected outcome of a contract is that both parties take advantage of each other and they both win.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      That's a bizarre definition of "take advantage."
      - htf 13y ago
        Then I assume you mean that one party is better off and the other party is worse off (taken advantage of). Sure, that can happen. But in the case of Amazon, the workers are better off or they wouldn't work there.
        rayiner 13y ago
        No, "taken advantage of" does not require one party to be made worse off. That is not the way the phrase is ordinarily used in the English language.
        tesmar2 13y ago
        Sure it is. If I am taken advantage of, I am not better off for it.
        mpyne 13y ago
        You could be "better off", but still have been screwed out of being "even more better off". That's still being taken advantage of. Consider the legendary story about how Steve Jobs screwed the Woz.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Either definition works. You can take advantage of (exploit) someone at their expense, or your can take advantage of (leverage) their capabilities to mutual gain. Frank took advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping to do his last-minute Christmas shopping
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. I think the fundamental disconnect here, is the people you are debating with believe that Amazon should have made it more advantageous for the workers, because as the workers have no other options it would be the nice thing to do.
- ama729 13y ago
  > If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. If your grandfather gave all of his money willingly and right away to his physician, don't you feel the physician acted unethically? And don't you feel your grandfather might be impacted negatively by that decision?

mrow84 13y ago

In our society it is very difficult (though not entirely impossible) to survive without money. If you are not in a position to withhold your labour, because you have no money, then you have no bargaining power when determining your wages. In this case, a prospective employer can essentially offer you any wage they like - will that be a truly "voluntary" contract, even though you have no choice other than to accept it? Simplistic solutions like "just move elsewhere" ignore both the inherent difficulties that moving poses when you are living in poverty, and the situations encountered by many people who take that option. As a new arrival you face the prospect of high initial costs trying to find a place to live and trying to find work, on top of the living costs you would have faced anyway, coupled to the fact that you are likely to have a reduced support network to help you deal with any problems you might face, and help you get on your feet. This is all after the initial expense of actually moving. You asked your parent for a proposed solution, mine is simply for Amazon to more equitably distribute revenue within the company, to spend more on low-level wages, less on high-level wages, and less on other projects if there is a shortfall. In general I suspect that some kind of employee ownership goes quite far to alleviating many problems of this nature. As a footnote, the only sense in which a market exchange is voluntary is that all parties agreed to it, which follows from the definition, and is therefore useless: "market exchange" will suffice. It is simply a disingenuous attempt to make the idea of a market exchange sound more humane, and to suggest an absence of coercion, without ever providing evidence that this is the case.

Artistry121 13y ago
To your first paragraph your point only holds if there is absolutely no competition for workers (which may be the case). And yes, it still is voluntary. I once bought a phone off craigslist. It was a decent phone, worth probably $50 but I got it for $35 because the seller needed cash right away. Just because he was illiquid does not mean it was wrong of me to buy the phone from him. Or was that immoral of me and should I have been required to give him $50? I agree moving is difficult - but so is creating efficiencies like Bezos has done. If your social views include the view that life should be easy for everyone, no matter their contribution, then we have a fundamental difference in what is realistic. If that is your view though maybe a better solution would be for those with money who share your view to support those without jobs or working with Amazon (or pay them to not work for Amazon). It is very easy to ask Amazon to change their policies, but that's because it isn't your money. (It's also worth noting that Amazon is not even profitable and runs in incredibly competitive industries. And, for every dollar they have to raise in costs they need to raise in profits.) Your solution might work but has some concerns. Although the market for unskilled work is very heavily weighted towards companies the market for skilled leadership is very competitive. There is a reason top executives at Apple, Google and Amazon are paid well. Paying 10,000 workers $1 an hour more means $20,000,000 less yearly to spend on upper level talent in a highly competitive marketplace for that talent. I am pointing out the human respecting nature of the market exchange - that it respects human choice (no matter how bad or good an individuals choice may be) rather than implying the idea that someone else knows what is best. Coercion is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats". I have never heard a story of Amazon threatening someone to work for them or using physical force to entice them to take a job. Taxes, military drafts and certain types of crime are coercion - posting on a job board is not.

bluecalm 13y ago

The contract is only voluntary if both sides have other reasonable options. This is very important point and the biggest hole in American Libertarian view of the world. There is a reason slavery contracts are illegal as well as there is a reason for worker rights (wouldn't be necessary and could be negotiated for every contract by logic of voluntary contract - workers just wouldn't agree to worse conditions).

Houshalter 13y ago
It's still voluntary. I may have no choice but to eat food, but it isn't farmers that are forcing me to buy it.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Signing an agreement with a gun to your head is not voluntary. This is, after all, the normal complaint of the libertarian regarding the extortion of taxes, no? Well the same logic applies when the "gun" is not physically a gun: If your set of viable choices has a size of 1 then you cannot be honestly said to have any "voluntary" choice.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    As I said, the same is true of food or any other necessity. But we aren't going around claiming farmers are exploiting us. The problem with the person holding a gun to your head scenario, is that they are abusing your rights in the first place by putting a gun to your head. We don't want people to do that for various reasons. But in this scenario it isn't the employer or farmer holding the gun, it's mother nature. They are just offering assistance from that.
    - bluecalm 13y ago
      The problem with that is that you see property rights as part of "mother nature". So if one side controls all the resources and can coerce the other to w/e they please you see it as "mother nature" on the other hand when I put a gun to your head it's no longer mother nature it's "abusing rights".

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>How is entering into a voluntary contract with someone taking advantage of them? Just because the contract is voluntary does not mean it's not exploitative. See: sex workers.