Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Contrary Libertarian

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.
TubOLard
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:54:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

I could not care less if someone sits on his butt. Just don't act entitled and come to me for a handout.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:56:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

None of this is true.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:16:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 6:56:40 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

None of this is true.

Ok.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:19:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 6:54:27 AM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.


I could not care less if someone sits on his butt. Just don't act entitled and come to me for a handout.

Are you the only one who pays taxes?
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 12:18:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You messed up the order of operations. Don't quit until you've lined up another better paying job.

If you quit first, you're an idiot. Good jobs are hard to come by nowadays so you could be looking for a long time before you get an opportunity.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

They argue that markets are better at determining wages than the government--and I agree with that to a large degree.

As for the unemployed, they again say look at the market. Welfare displaces charitable giving (which is true), and if we were to end or limit welfare, private charities would be able to care for the poor. The benefit of this is because giving to charity is voluntary, giving taxes isn't. I disagree with that proposition. Other libertarians--like Milton Friedman--support negative income taxes, which would serve as a social safety net.

Your argument is simply untrue.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


They argue that markets are better at determining wages than the government--and I agree with that to a large degree.

As for the unemployed, they again say look at the market. Welfare displaces charitable giving (which is true), and if we were to end or limit welfare, private charities would be able to care for the poor. The benefit of this is because giving to charity is voluntary, giving taxes isn't. I disagree with that proposition. Other libertarians--like Milton Friedman--support negative income taxes, which would serve as a social safety net.

Your argument is simply untrue.
TubOLard
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:38:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:19:39 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/1/2015 6:54:27 AM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.


I could not care less if someone sits on his butt. Just don't act entitled and come to me for a handout.

Are you the only one who pays taxes?

Are you the only one interested in this person sitting on their can?
TubOLard
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

This is a false dichotomy.
Yes, quit and find better work. Go into business yourself. Set yourself apart and earn what you deserve. That is absolutely true.

However, if you cannot find better work, or create it, perhaps you aren't as great as you think you are. In that event, you need to take what work you can get. There is, after all, no entitlement to a good job nor one that makes you happy.

The reason this is a false dichotomy is that you not working because of your pride is not the reason for scorn (outside of personal judgment). This is only an issue if the willingly unemployed make it one, by demanding that I support his lifestyle. If you want to give him money, that is fine. If his parent's allow him to live in their house and buy him food, that is their deal. But, for him to demand that I give him my money because he doesn't want to take a job that is beneath him is where it because an issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:02:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

That, along with the laissez faire economic model in general, relies on an idealized version of society in which everyone is a perfectly rational bargainer with full agency over themselves. It's just far too simplistic, and fails to account for other psychological & environmental factors which influence decision-making, as well as the general human predisposition towards irrationality.
TubOLard
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:22:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 5:02:16 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

That, along with the laissez faire economic model in general, relies on an idealized version of society in which everyone is a perfectly rational bargainer with full agency over themselves. It's just far too simplistic, and fails to account for other psychological & environmental factors which influence decision-making, as well as the general human predisposition towards irrationality.

Nothing is perfect, and I've never heard anybody say that anything is perfect.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:32:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

Well, first i would think that the smart choice would be to look for a job, before quitting the job you already have. Secondly, you are not guaranteed a job. Its your responsibility to get a job, nobody else.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:10:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

They argue that markets are better at determining wages than the government--and I agree with that to a large degree.

As for the unemployed, they again say look at the market. Welfare displaces charitable giving (which is true), and if we were to end or limit welfare, private charities would be able to care for the poor. The benefit of this is because giving to charity is voluntary, giving taxes isn't. I disagree with that proposition. Other libertarians--like Milton Friedman--support negative income taxes, which would serve as a social safety net.

Your argument is simply untrue.

I support your arguments and so does the guy your replying to. Did you reply to the wrong person?
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 5:22:33 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:02:16 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

That, along with the laissez faire economic model in general, relies on an idealized version of society in which everyone is a perfectly rational bargainer with full agency over themselves. It's just far too simplistic, and fails to account for other psychological & environmental factors which influence decision-making, as well as the general human predisposition towards irrationality.


Nothing is perfect, and I've never heard anybody say that anything is perfect.

Do you hate all forms of welfare. Check out my forum where we discuss it. I think we need it.

http://www.debate.org...
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 5:02:16 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

That, along with the laissez faire economic model in general, relies on an idealized version of society in which everyone is a perfectly rational bargainer with full agency over themselves. It's just far too simplistic, and fails to account for other psychological & environmental factors which influence decision-making, as well as the general human predisposition towards irrationality.

You can believe in the free market and still support forms of welfare like the negative income tax or unemplyment benefits as I do. Not all of us hate the poor
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 9:15:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You messed up the order of operations. Don't quit until you've lined up another better paying job.

If you quit first, you're an idiot. Good jobs are hard to come by nowadays so you could be looking for a long time before you get an opportunity.

The point is not having a job for the sake of having a job and making someone else rich but being able to support yourself without taxpayers having to subsidize your income. Employers who pay low wages are forcing society to take up the tab.

However, not only do these employers complain about having to pay a living wage but also social welfare programs, even though their low wages are the reason for social welfare programs in the first place.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 2:36:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

Another very real possibility is capital banding together, intentionally or unintentionally, in a market sector to keep the cost of labor low.

They argue that markets are better at determining wages than the government--and I agree with that to a large degree.

Consumers value goods and services. If capital (being the consumer) values services (being human resources) in a market sector at a specific rate, the market will only fluctuate for the most part nominally to keep a competitive edge among buyers (capital).

If one business owner pays less for labor than all other business owners in that respective market, then, of course, the business owner's labor force will become diminished.

However, if there is a trend in paying less for labor, then, the market remains competitive.

Either the worker enters a new profession or he, or she, is forced to adapt to the new market price set for labor.

Learning a new skill or expertise temporarily disadvantages the worker. The workers expenses are lost wages and cost of training or of going to school. Furthermore, the worker is inexperienced in the new profession and, therefore, is less desirable.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 3:06:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".

They don't search for the jobs. Competing businesses do. Plus, since the right to collectivize wouldn't be banned in a libertarian system, you wouldn't need government regulations.

I personally don't agree with the position 100%, because I think the MW could theoretically exist as long as it was under the market equilibrium (I think that before the 2008 hikes it was at or below equilibrium), so the job losses were minimal. I honestly would ban the MW on a federal level and allow states to set their own wages because the costs of living vary dramatically all around the US.


They argue that markets are better at determining wages than the government--and I agree with that to a large degree.

As for the unemployed, they again say look at the market. Welfare displaces charitable giving (which is true), and if we were to end or limit welfare, private charities would be able to care for the poor. The benefit of this is because giving to charity is voluntary, giving taxes isn't. I disagree with that proposition. Other libertarians--like Milton Friedman--support negative income taxes, which would serve as a social safety net.

Your argument is simply untrue.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 3:10:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 2:36:30 AM, s-anthony wrote:
That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

Another very real possibility is capital banding together, intentionally or unintentionally, in a market sector to keep the cost of labor low.

They argue that markets are better at determining wages than the government--and I agree with that to a large degree.

Consumers value goods and services. If capital (being the consumer) values services (being human resources) in a market sector at a specific rate, the market will only fluctuate for the most part nominally to keep a competitive edge among buyers (capital).

If one business owner pays less for labor than all other business owners in that respective market, then, of course, the business owner's labor force will become diminished.

However, if there is a trend in paying less for labor, then, the market remains competitive.

Either the worker enters a new profession or he, or she, is forced to adapt to the new market price set for labor.

Learning a new skill or expertise temporarily disadvantages the worker. The workers expenses are lost wages and cost of training or of going to school. Furthermore, the worker is inexperienced in the new profession and, therefore, is less desirable.

The whole businesses will band together thing is extremely unlikely. To reverse the scenario, if one company breaks the cartel and pays higher wages, that business' labor force would dramatically increase and it would have a huge competitive advantage. If there are great incentives to break that cartel--and there would be, because it would make business sense--one of them would do it. The labor market is competitive and does not work under the monospy model (usually... usually...)

I don't fully buy the libertarian argument, because I think minimum wages can function as long as they are set at or below the market equilibrium, but I think you characterized the libertarian position in the wrong way. Way too idealistic and Utopian? maybe. But heartless? nah
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 11:16:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 3:10:28 AM, 16kadams wrote:

The whole businesses will band together thing is extremely unlikely. To reverse the scenario, if one company breaks the cartel and pays higher wages, that business' labor force would dramatically increase and it would have a huge competitive advantage. If there are great incentives to break that cartel--and there would be, because it would make business sense--one of them would do it. The labor market is competitive and does not work under the monospy model (usually... usually...)

Insert anti-freedom, crony, sponging Labor union racket.....

I don't fully buy the libertarian argument, because I think minimum wages can function as long as they are set at or below the market equilibrium, but I think you characterized the libertarian position in the wrong way. Way too idealistic and Utopian? maybe. But heartless? nah
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:38:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That's where politicians need to do their job and find a way to maximize job availability. I'd tell that person to keep their chin up and keep looking until they can land a good job.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 12:01:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 5:22:33 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:02:16 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

That, along with the laissez faire economic model in general, relies on an idealized version of society in which everyone is a perfectly rational bargainer with full agency over themselves. It's just far too simplistic, and fails to account for other psychological & environmental factors which influence decision-making, as well as the general human predisposition towards irrationality.


Nothing is perfect, and I've never heard anybody say that anything is perfect.

Many idealistic libertarian economists implicitly assume perfection whilst waxing poetic about the glories of the free market.
TubOLard
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:54:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 12:01:23 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:22:33 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:02:16 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:04:17 PM, TubOLard wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:25:24 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:00:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/1/2015 2:42:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Most libertarians will tell someone complaining about low wages to quit and find a better paying job if he, or she, is not happy with his, or her, pay.

However, if the person takes their advice and can't find a better paying job and refuses to take a low paying job, they call the job seeker lazy and say any job is better than sitting on his, or her, butt.

That is now how libertarian theory works. They say that labor markets are competetive, so if one worker is being paid a super low wage--but deserves a higher one--the worker will be come disgruntled. At that point, if a worker can be paid a higher wage but still turn a profit, a competing employer will offer a higher salary to said worker, steal that worker, and then the previous employer who was paying too low loses a source of income and his competitor grows as a result.

That assumes that the employee actually has the ability to search for and accept jobs in competing businesses, which often is not the case for the poorest people. Furthermore, it assumes that there's a way to objectively calculate the how much an employee is worth (i.e. how much they "deserve" to be paid), and that the current employer, competing employer, and employee are all operating on that same objective standard to determine how much is "deserved".


If I am a business owner, then I can readily figure out how much to pay my employee. The employee can also use the exact same formula and techniques to calculate how much he thinks he should be paid. The two people can discuss it and come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

That, along with the laissez faire economic model in general, relies on an idealized version of society in which everyone is a perfectly rational bargainer with full agency over themselves. It's just far too simplistic, and fails to account for other psychological & environmental factors which influence decision-making, as well as the general human predisposition towards irrationality.


Nothing is perfect, and I've never heard anybody say that anything is perfect.

Many idealistic libertarian economists implicitly assume perfection whilst waxing poetic about the glories of the free market.

I've never known a libertarian, economist, or anyone else who implicitly or explicitly assumes perfection. I have never encountered a person who implied or said everything is perfect. In fact, many libertarians clearly state that freedom can be quite messy.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 3:59:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The whole businesses will band together thing is extremely unlikely.

This is not some theory. This is something that is and has been a reality for a very long time. Wages are set by job markets; for the most part, each market sets a ceiling on wages. Markets that have once set a higher premium on labor have through the absolution of labor's ability to bargain have set this ceiling at an all time low.

This is most noticeable in low end markets, such as the service industry. For instance, personal care attendants make embarrassingly low wages. Is this because having someone assist people with disabilities is not a valuable service? To say so would be ludicrous, being personal care attendants, often, are invaluable to people with disabilities and their families. No. Rather, I believe the reason for this is it's considered a low skill profession. In other words, the lack of skill allows it to be an entry level profession, significantly increasing the labor pool for it, to which this phenomenon falls under a law of supply and demand.

The problem I see with applying the supply and demand model to human resources is people are not, merely, inanimate commodities but are responsive and in some cases reactionary. To illustrate, a piece of steel does not care which value you place on it; but people do. People see wages as reflections of that which they're worth to employers. If they feel they are worth very little, it will reflect in their performance. In other words, not only have low wage employers made it very clear their employees are expendable but also they have made the employment of their employees of little value and therefore expendable to the employees. Performance effects the quality of production, which in turn effects viability. Secondly, low wage industries tend to have very low incidences of retention, which not only accounts for the loss of production but also new hire expenditures, such as training, equipment, and administrative costs.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People have low wages because they took the job. If you don't like low wages, get a small business loan, or sit and wait. That is how you get wages to rise.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 7:51:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
People have low wages because they took the job. If you don't like low wages, get a small business loan, or sit and wait. That is how you get wages to rise.

A person is not only selling a service but also his, or her, life. During the time the employee is at work, he, or she, commits one's attention and presence to the purpose of his, or her, employment. In other words, the employee is engaged with the business of the employer and not his, or her, own.

Why would a worker sacrifice one's life, only, for the enrichment of someone else? Why would he, or she, meet the needs of the employer if not to meet his, or her, own needs?

To expect that from anyone is extremely selfish and egocentric. In paying a worker less than a living wage, not only is the employer paying the worker too little to support oneself but also is consuming his, or her, time which is needed to find a means of self-sufficiency.

Secondly, why is this any concern of society? Why is this not left between the employer and his, or her, worker? Because, both the employer and the employee are part of society; therefore, if society is to be concerned about itself, then, it must be concerned about its individual constituents; for, it is its constituency that goes to the very formation of society. Being the employer refuses to pay his, or her, employee a living wage, society, in order to survive, must look after its own; in other words, society, namely taxpayers, subsidizes the employer's insufficient compensation.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 8:41:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 7:51:37 AM, s-anthony wrote:
People have low wages because they took the job. If you don't like low wages, get a small business loan, or sit and wait. That is how you get wages to rise.

A person is not only selling a service but also his, or her, life. During the time the employee is at work, he, or she, commits one's attention and presence to the purpose of his, or her, employment. In other words, the employee is engaged with the business of the employer and not his, or her, own.

Why would a worker sacrifice one's life, only, for the enrichment of someone else? Why would he, or she, meet the needs of the employer if not to meet his, or her, own needs?

To expect that from anyone is extremely selfish and egocentric. In paying a worker less than a living wage, not only is the employer paying the worker too little to support oneself but also is consuming his, or her, time which is needed to find a means of self-sufficiency.

Secondly, why is this any concern of society? Why is this not left between the employer and his, or her, worker? Because, both the employer and the employee are part of society; therefore, if society is to be concerned about itself, then, it must be concerned about its individual constituents; for, it is its constituency that goes to the very formation of society. Being the employer refuses to pay his, or her, employee a living wage, society, in order to survive, must look after its own; in other words, society, namely taxpayers, subsidizes the employer's insufficient compensation.

If you sell your life to the devil, you deserve what you get. The employer is under no obligation to provide you with a purpose in life. That is something the worker must earn.

Low wages would not exist if people just stopped taking the jobs and sealing the borders.