Krsto
Well-known member
Nope. Employers should only have to pay enough to attract workers.
toldailytopic: Should there be a mandated minimum wage?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Nope. Employers should only have to pay enough to attract workers.
Samstarrett
New member
Is not all profit at the expense of potentially greater employee welfare had the profit been paid out to the employees?
You can count on my presence for that thread.
No. He created or acquited them with the help of others, who agreed to do it in exchange for particular benefits provided by the CEO. As long as they get them, they haven't been cheated.
Did the employer use force to coerce the employee into agreeing to the contract?
How so? He can still accept or refuse as he desires. The fact that he accepts proves that he thinks this is the best deal he can get. By forbidding him to take it, you only hurt his situation.
SoD, there are cases in which a sexual act indeed would constitute rape if there were a great enough power disparity [even if the woman says yes]. You can't hold the argument to be fallacious merely because certain groups of people misuse the concept.
Here's an example: You are a member of a charitable organization giving out food in the third world. One of the women who is dependent on the food that you provide makes sexual advances towards you. If you have sex with such a woman, would that be rape? Well, I'm not sure. But it would be ethically questionable at the very least.
A greater example is the case of having sex with a female under the age of consent. Let's ignore the question of what the age of consent should be. There is too great a disparity between someone below the age of consent and someone above the age of consent for the consent to be freely given.
Again: an employer starts a sexual relationship with an employee. Even if the employee "consents," such a relationship is highly questionable in an ethical sense.
Treating humanity merely as means to an end and not as an end in itself.
And?
some other dude
New member
If I have a lawn service, I hire workers to cut grass. In the winter when there's no grass to cut, I don't hire workers.
Would you argue that I should continue to pay them for work they're not doing, for the "humanity" of it?
frostmanj
Subscriber
If you use his Wal-Mart example from earlier, I assume that is exactly where he would go.
somewhat like the "Baby Mamma's" who have multiple children with multiple fathers who are well cared for with hard-working tax-payers dollars?
You know, Bybee, this is what I don't understand. How can it be justified that people who don't work can expect higher standards of living than those who do? And when that is the case, how can you complain that there are people who choose not to work? They'd be worse off if they did.
Trad basically answered how I would but I'll still throw in a couple things...
It is true that in some situations the employee actually has the upper hand. If they have high level skills in a job market that has a small supply the employer will be in the weaker position and may end up paying more than they want to get that worker. In other cases the situation is flipped.
I would venture that the majority of cases where the employee has the upper hand are for jobs where the minimum wage is never an issue because they are skilled jobs where the wage is going to be high. It is the low level jobs that the employee has the power on and that is where the minimum wage comes in.
How voluntary is the agreement when the job applicant is desperate for a job and the employer isn't desperate for the position and/or they know there are lots of other workers out there who can take the job if this person won't?
The argument is often brought up that if the wage is too low they can simply keep searching for a job that pays a higher wage but things aren't always that cut and dry.
My post about unions was partially sarcastic but I do think there is something to it. Employees joining together can help with power disparities between the employer and employees.
Of course, employees are not all saints so the employer can end up being taken advantage of in some cases.
Perhaps the best position is a middle ground where there is a minimum wage but it isn't a blanketed across all jobs. It is based on the industry, company, region, etc. Similar to what Buzzword suggested.
:idunno:
what about snow removal?
My dear Trad, I do not complain because people choose not to work. I complain when they believe I should support them!
Samstarrett
New member
OK.
It still seems voluntary to me as long as the employer's superior bargaining power is not dependent on his violation or threatened violation of any rights. Why is it wrong for me(or anyone) to work for the best wage I can get, even if you don't think it's a good one, rather than nothing?
Why not?
I've got no problem with that.
If we just let everyone get the best deal he can on a market without government interference, then we'll maximize efficiency, as voluntary, contractual transactions always involve the transfer of resources from those who value them less to those who value them more. Government interference can only make things worse.
Newman
New member
Traditio would sacrifice every human being's right to make contracts with other people because of his own arbitrary definitions. He also stigmatizes the employers' propensity to decrease costs and increase revenues because he thinks it isn't fair, even when, at the bare and basic fundamental level, the only way we can judge "fair" is when both parties consent to the terms of their agreement and then fulfill them accordingly.
I give you X -> you give me Y. Any deviation (and I really mean ANY) from this arrangement invites all kinds of tyranny, economic inefficiency, and unhappy people.
I give you X -> you give me Y. Any deviation (and I really mean ANY) from this arrangement invites all kinds of tyranny, economic inefficiency, and unhappy people.
I forgot about this until Newman posted and the thread was back on the list....
And I try to shy away from claims of right or wrong. Also claims of rights being violated. I don't know what sort of wage someone can claim a right to. My primary concern is that people sometimes talk as though the employee and employer are on equal ground and that any agreement they come to is mutually beneficial. As if two parties agreeing to a contract means that both sides are just as benefited by it.
I would say that employers usually have more bargaining power because there is probably someone out there who will work for whatever wage they are willing to pay. Applicant A turns the job down due to the low wage. Applicant B doesn't need a higher wage so they take it.
In this context, what is the maximally efficient situation? Do you mean unemployment heading toward 0?
I didn't say it wasn't voluntary at all. I asked how voluntary it is.
And I try to shy away from claims of right or wrong. Also claims of rights being violated. I don't know what sort of wage someone can claim a right to. My primary concern is that people sometimes talk as though the employee and employer are on equal ground and that any agreement they come to is mutually beneficial. As if two parties agreeing to a contract means that both sides are just as benefited by it.
There are various factors. How many open positions are there? How quickly does the employee need to get the job? How badly does the person need a particular wage?
I would say that employers usually have more bargaining power because there is probably someone out there who will work for whatever wage they are willing to pay. Applicant A turns the job down due to the low wage. Applicant B doesn't need a higher wage so they take it.
OK.
I suppose claims of better/worse depend on the goal.
In this context, what is the maximally efficient situation? Do you mean unemployment heading toward 0?
You really are dumber than a bag of hammers! I wasn't kidding.
some other dude
New member
Cmon Del - for skilled and experienced workers like you and me, it would be a godsend.
Unskilled and inexperienced workers like Trad?
Forget about it. Nobody would hire them at $15/hour.
Unskilled and inexperienced workers like Trad?
Forget about it. Nobody would hire them at $15/hour.
- Status