Re: Effects of raising minimum wages in USA

Michał Gancarski wrote:

If W (wealthy guy) and P (poor guy) want to reach a deal so P work for W
and W want to force P to accept anything he wants, he just can wait for
P to
consume all his accumulated wealth then by starvation he is forced to
accept anything offered.

This comes from their ability to make good economic decisions. No wonder a
guy more skilled in the subject is wealthier. This is exactly the way it
should be, this is how economic incentives work and one of the best
features of market economy. More resources for people better skilled in
applicating them is a good thing I would say.

You don't understand a thing. Or rather you refuse to acknowledge even if
you understand something just because this is against the libertarian
philosophy of greed is good.

But let try one more time. W is a dumb, lazy, unskilled son of the bitch but
he inherited all the wealth available on the island. P is a smart, hard
working, well educated but just landed on the island with no food.

Because is starving he have to negotiate with W do do some work for him for
some food. W say: I give you an apple a day if you work 16 hours nonstop
whatever I need. In the end W is going to get a new house with pool and
everything designed and made by P which barely survive and have no time nor
resources to do anything for himself.

Based on the libertarian philosophy which you just exposed above, the W
"better skilled" and this kind of libertarian society offer better
"incentives" and is a "good thing". And once you claim such a crap you ask
yourself "why everybody tell only bad things about libertarians ?".

However, for somebody open minded this example is a clear example of why an
unregulated "free market" won't provide ever a fair negotiation. Always the
wealthy will have an unfair advantage in negotiation and a wealthy usually
maximize his wealth by keeping his workers in poverty.

Obviously, the concept of "fair" deal brakes down just in the beginning
when one wants to define a "fair" deal as something more than informed and
voluntary. If we base the concept on relative economic strength of
business partners then all we get is absurd. Relative strength of me and
some department store is a disadvantage for me but it is me (a customer)
who is a master here.

Only if department stores does not conspire within them (like in the
original example with nurses) to fix prices. If you have in your town 100
mom & pop businesses then you have free competition and everybody will
cut prices until the limit they can stay in business. But if you have only
one big retailer in your town, then he can fix the price as he please.

If the item we are talking about is a baseball cap then you can wait 2
months till you visit your parents and buy a cheaper one from there.
However, if the item we are talking about is a patented pill for you serious
illness, you are going to pay the price since no other producer have it.


Relative strength of a good specialist looks like a
disadvantage when compared to a company that wants to hire him but it
still can be him at a better position.

If there is an economic downturn or if the company opened offshore
facilities then his qualification are not going to serve him at all.

"""
"My parents paid for me to get a (degree) in math and now I am a pooper
scooper," Relles, a 42-year-old married father of two told Reuters. "I can
clean four to five yards in a hour if they are close together."
"""
http://www.itpaa.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1609


So no, relative economic strength
is worth nothing as a criterion of fairness.

The strength is everything is this situations. Then here are where the
reforms are required.

Many would like to boycot WalMart for their shitty behavior, but few can
afford to buy from Belk and Sears only. Even to vote with your pockets
(which is a phrase very dear to libertarians)
you need strength.

.

Quantcast