Minimum Wage should be zero, change my mind.

Author: liahamil

Posts

Total: 44
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
By being convinced for taking less payment than they could have received.
Then everyone working is being deceived by your description. Because everyone can be earning more.

No, not always.
Redundant.

Withheld? Surely.
How is the information withheld?


I don't know what "forcefully" means in this context.
Are they being coerced from the means to find the information themselves?

Clearly people are "willing" to work for less. I never suggested otherwise.
Yes you did:

If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place?


Because they were duped.



How does accepting the lowest value suggest deception?

Because no one would willingly accept a lower value if they believed they could get it for a higher one.
Now, unless you're conflating deception with coercion, what are you suggesting here?

The differences I have described are observed, not dictated.
No they are not. One example is psychological maturity. There are many studies which demonstrate, for example, identical psychological profiles between women and children. Not just that, but the neoteny of women often results in juvenile characteristics (e.g. larger eyes, slimmer chins, higher toned voices, leaner muscle tissue, etc.) It could be a fascinating subject for those willing to do the research.

The original claims it that "plenty of people are duped into working well below the value of their labor or service." I take it as a given. Do you deny the existence of people that are duped into working for less than they could otherwise have received?
I don't have to deny it; you have to substantiate it, not just presume it as a given.

I don't know what "sustaining an interest" has to do with anything. I'm simply noting that the adult has enhanced negotiation abilities due to experience. Abilities that allow them to dupe a mere child into accepting a less than optimal arrangement.
And what does "enhanced abilities" in negotiation mean? Your logic is inept: you're arguing either that the child doesn't know what it wants, or that the child does know what it wants, but is too "inexperienced" to know that what it wants isn't actually what it wants. This isn't based on any observation of the child's capacity to act in its best interest; it's based on your prejudice.

The mere existence of other competing theories that aren't conclusively dismissed is sufficient. Regardless, you haven't proven the soundness of your theory, let alone that it is the only one that is sound. Seems to me that such a claim would inherit the burden of providing a counterargument for all of them.
Because value itself is subjective. The gains from any good, service, or transaction depends on the subject. While economics does its best to simplify these transactions with its generalizations (presuming homogeneity) these generalizations can at best be snapshots, not factual assessments. Most empirical evidence observe trends after the fact. If you take the law of supply for example, the convention dictates that that as the price goes up, quantity supplied increases. But this is not the case when it concerns an individual laborer. In that event, we see a backwards bending supply curve, where at a certain point, the Law of supply is contradicted. As income goes up, hours worked eventually decrease.

The Law of Demand would suggest that as price increases, quantity demanded decreases. But for luxury items, this is not the case. Once again, an economic law is contradicted. If you ever studied quantifying a demand curve (and I did when I studied advanced Econometrics) you'd note that the demand curve isn't downward sloping. It's actually logarithmic with many of the points scattered. The downward slope is a result of a linear regression taken, which involves heavy speculation (e.g. confidence intervals.) Why do we see these occurences? Because individual behavior is subjective. And their behavior being a manifestation of their values necessarily infers that their values are subjective as well. (And this is demonstrated in a free-flowing price system.)

I don't have to disprove all the other theories of value. Substantiating the subjective theory of value necessarily excludes all others.







drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
By being convinced for taking less payment than they could have received.
Then everyone working is being deceived by your description. Because everyone can be earning more.
Now we're getting somewhere.


Withheld? Surely.
How is the information withheld?
By not being given.



I don't know what "forcefully" means in this context.
Are they being coerced from the means to find the information themselves?
I don't know what that even means.


Clearly people are "willing" to work for less. I never suggested otherwise.
Yes you did:

If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place?


Because they were duped.



How does accepting the lowest value suggest deception?

Because no one would willingly accept a lower value if they believed they could get it for a higher one.
Now, unless you're conflating deception with coercion, what are you suggesting here?
It's not "willingly working for less" unless they know that there is a higher option on the table. You can't willingly make a choice unless an actual choice is present and you are cognizant of it.


The differences I have described are observed, not dictated.
No they are not. One example is psychological maturity. There are many studies which demonstrate, for example, identical psychological profiles between women and children. Not just that, but the neoteny of women often results in juvenile characteristics (e.g. larger eyes, slimmer chins, higher toned voices, leaner muscle tissue, etc.) It could be a fascinating subject for those willing to do the research.
I accept it as a given that the biological and psychological differences between adults and children is a given.


The original claims it that "plenty of people are duped into working well below the value of their labor or service." I take it as a given. Do you deny the existence of people that are duped into working for less than they could otherwise have received?
I don't have to deny it; you have to substantiate it, not just presume it as a given.
Except I just did.


I don't know what "sustaining an interest" has to do with anything. I'm simply noting that the adult has enhanced negotiation abilities due to experience. Abilities that allow them to dupe a mere child into accepting a less than optimal arrangement.
And what does "enhanced abilities" in negotiation mean?
It means they are more capable in arriving at an outcome that benefits them more than the other perosn.

Your logic is inept: you're arguing either that the child doesn't know what it wants,
This happens, yes.

or that the child does know what it wants, but is too "inexperienced" to know that what it wants isn't actually what it wants.

This happens as well.

This isn't based on any observation of the child's capacity to act in its best interest; it's based on your prejudice.
Children generally don't have a capacity to act in their best interest. That's one of their defining attributes. And this is based on my experience and the fact that, as a society, we grant parents almost absolute control over their children primarily for this reason.


The mere existence of other competing theories that aren't conclusively dismissed is sufficient. Regardless, you haven't proven the soundness of your theory, let alone that it is the only one that is sound. Seems to me that such a claim would inherit the burden of providing a counterargument for all of them.
Because value itself is subjective. The gains from any good, service, or transaction depends on the subject. While economics does its best to simplify these transactions with its generalizations (presuming homogeneity) these generalizations can at best be snapshots, not factual assessments. Most empirical evidence observe trends after the fact. If you take the law of supply for example, the convention dictates that that as the price goes up, quantity supplied increases. But this is not the case when it concerns an individual laborer. In that event, we see a backwards bending supply curve, where at a certain point, the Law of supply is contradicted. As income goes up, hours worked eventually decrease.

The Law of Demand would suggest that as price increases, quantity demanded decreases. But for luxury items, this is not the case. Once again, an economic law is contradicted. If you ever studied quantifying a demand curve (and I did when I studied advanced Econometrics) you'd note that the demand curve isn't downward sloping. It's actually logarithmic with many of the points scattered. The downward slope is a result of a linear regression taken, which involves heavy speculation (e.g. confidence intervals.) Why do we see these occurences? Because individual behavior is subjective. And their behavior being a manifestation of their values necessarily infers that their values are subjective as well. (And this is demonstrated in a free-flowing price system.)

I don't disprove all the other theories of value. Substantiating the subjective theory of value necessarily excludes all others.
How so?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Now we're getting somewhere.


That was a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, the extension of your reasoning to its logical conclusion results in absurdity.

By not being given.
Assuming they have it. And if they did, why would a prospective employee be entitled to it?

I don't know what that even means.
Yes you do. I'm asking you whether or not prospective employees are being forced away from looking looking for information about higher paying jobs?

It's not "willingly working for less" unless they know that there is a higher option on the table. You can't willingly make a choice unless an actual choice is present and you are cognizant of it.
First, define "willing." Second,  you're presuming perfect information; hence it leads to this question: what is prevent a prospective employee from getting information on a higher paying prospects?

I accept it as a given that the biological and psychological differences between adults and children is a given.
Circular reasoning. Your "given" is misinformed.

Except I just did.
Presuming givens is not substantiation.

It means they are more capable in arriving at an outcome that benefits them more than the other perosn.
And by which metric are you quantifying this?

This happens, yes.

This happens as well.
Absurd. Only the subject knows best what it wants. A parent can observe a child; A parent can guide a child; the parents can even have wants for the child; however, a parent can't want in place of its child; it can't want as the child wants.

Children generally don't have a capacity to act in their best interest.
No, children don't always exhibit the capacity to act in their parents interests, which usually delineates a concern for the child's safety. This however doesn't exclude a child from having interests, let alone acting them out. I assume parents don't purchase toys and stuffed animals for their own immediate benefit.

That's one of their defining attributes.

No, it's not. It's a legal definition.

How so?
Because the other theories you proposed presuppose an objective premise (i.e money, labor, intrinsic, etc.) By substantiating the subjective theory of value, all theories which presume objectivity are necessarily excluded.


drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
That was a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, the extension of your reasoning to its logical conclusion results in absurdity.
More accurately, a reductio ad absurdum is an extension from premises that leads to a necessary logical conclusion, not merely a conclusion you personally disagree with. I see no contradiction.

Assuming they have it. And if they did, why would a prospective employee be entitled to it?
Well, the information in question is the highest price they're willing to offer for a job. I take it as a given that they have that information. I haven't made any claims about anyone being entitled to that information.


I don't know what that even means.
Yes you do. I'm asking you whether or not prospective employees are being forced away from looking looking for information about higher paying jobs?
I don't know what that means. How would someone be forced away form looking for information? This is a nonsensical question.


It's not "willingly working for less" unless they know that there is a higher option on the table. You can't willingly make a choice unless an actual choice is present and you are cognizant of it.
First, define "willing."
The traditional, common sense definition suffices. Regardless, I was quoting you, so you define it.

Second,  you're presuming perfect information; hence it leads to this question: what is prevent a prospective employee from getting information on a higher paying prospects?
I'm not presuming perfect information. In fact, I'm pointing out that the information is imperfect, hence the duping. And the thing preventing an employee from getting that information is the lack of the prospective employer in giving it.

Circular reasoning. Your "given" is misinformed.
That's not what "circular reasoning" means.

Presuming givens is not substantiation.
Then you're not following the conversation. The scenario is that they have taken a job for less money than they could have gotten it for. I am defining that as having been duped as no reasonable person would willingly do such a thing if they were aware of a better option.

And by which metric are you quantifying this?
The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative.

Absurd. Only the subject knows best what it wants.
Not correct. Children often have times difficulty in realizing and articulating the precise nature of their desires.

A parent can observe a child; A parent can guide a child; the parents can even have wants for the child; however, a parent can't want in place of its child; it can't want as the child wants.
I didn't say that a parent "wants" in place of its child. That is a ridiculous statement to make. I'm saying that children often don't know what they want and part of being a parent is discerning the true nature of what they want.

Children generally don't have a capacity to act in their best interest.
No, children don't always exhibit the capacity to act in their parents interests, which usually delineates a concern for the child's safety. This however doesn't exclude a child from having interests, let alone acting them out. I assume parents don't purchase toys and stuffed animals for their own immediate benefit.
None of this contradicts my statement.

No, it's not. It's a legal definition.
I wasn't speaking in a legal capacity. I stand by my statement.


How so?
Because the other theories you proposed presuppose an objective premise (i.e money, labor, intrinsic, etc.) By substantiating the subjective theory of value, all theories which presume objectivity are necessarily excluded.
Only if a thing can only exclusively have objective or subjective components, rather than a combination of both. This is not established.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
More accurately, a reductio ad absurdum is an extension from premises that [logically leads to a necessary absurd conclusion.]
Corrected.

Well, the information in question is the highest price they're willing to offer for a job. I take it as a given that they have that information. I haven't made any claims about anyone being entitled to that information.
How would you know that the information were being withheld if the information was withheld?

How would someone be forced away form looking for information? This is a nonsensical question.
It's deduced from the nonsensical notion that anyone is capable of ascertaining the amount an employer would've offered. The only other way is to forcefully keep the information away from access.

The traditional, common sense definition suffices.
Where in that common sense definition does it suggest one need not be deceived?

Regardless, I was quoting you, so you define it.
You incorporated it into your lexicon as well, even if you were reflecting it back at me, so I need not define it because it's your use of the word that I'm challenging, not my own.

I'm not presuming perfect information. In fact, I'm pointing out that the information is imperfect, hence the duping.
Yes you are. Because your inference of that which constitutes a deception-free market is the presence of perfect information.

And the thing preventing an employee from getting that information is the lack of the prospective employer in giving it.
No. First, depriving someone of information is not the same as preventing them from getting it. Second, as I noted above, you've yet to establish how you're able to ascertain that an employer is withholding information about the amount he would've offered.

That's not what "circular reasoning" means.
You're right. I misread something you submitted. With that said, substantiate the reason that the differences between children and adults (both psychologically and biologically/physically) are a given.

The scenario is that they have taken a job for less money than they could have gotten it for. I am defining that as having been duped as no reasonable person would willingly do such a thing if they were aware of a better option.
Your argument is essentially that prospective employees couldn't willfully accept employment for less money in the face of higher offers; therefore, they're being deceived. You haven't established how you'd discern the thoughts of an employer who's purposefully withholding information; second, you haven't established how being deceived is akin to doing something unwillingly despite your common sense definitions.

The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative.
Then how does one determine "What benefits whom more?" if not within a subjective framework?

Not correct. Children often have times difficulty in realizing and articulating the precise nature of their desires.
That has nothing to do with content. You're talking about expression. Only they can appreciate the true nature of their desires.

I didn't say that a parent "wants" in place of its child. That is a ridiculous statement to make.
That's the logical extension of your premise. That is reductio ad absurdum #2.

I'm saying that children often don't know what they want and part of being a parent is discerning the true nature of what they want.
No. Part of being a parent is filtering through that which the child wants, that which you've experienced makes the child happy and sad, and that which makes the child safe. You are the sire/mother; you are the custodian; you are its guardian; you are not your child's "whisperer."

I wasn't speaking in a legal capacity. I stand by my statement.
Your statement has not been demonstrated to bear a significance other than a legal one.

Only if a thing can only exclusively have objective or subjective components, rather than a combination of both. This is not established.
That doesn't matter. The subjective theory of value posits that value is subjective, not a combination of both

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
More accurately, a reductio ad absurdum is an extension from premises that [logically leads to a necessary absurd conclusion.]
Corrected.
Your definition is not correct and I would ask that you do not edit the content of my statements when quoting them. If you have commentary to add, do it in your own words outside the text.


Well, the information in question is the highest price they're willing to offer for a job. I take it as a given that they have that information. I haven't made any claims about anyone being entitled to that information.
How would you know that the information were being withheld if the information was withheld?
Epistemological concerns are not relevant. We're talking about this scenario as omniscient third parties.


How would someone be forced away form looking for information? This is a nonsensical question.
It's deduced from the nonsensical notion that anyone is capable of ascertaining the amount an employer would've offered. The only other way is to forcefully keep the information away from access.
I still don't know what it means to "forcefully keep" information away from someone. All you have to do to keep information away from someone is not give it. No "force" is required.


The traditional, common sense definition suffices.
Where in that common sense definition does it suggest one need not be deceived?
"of or relating to the will or power of choosing"

A person can only choose among options they are aware of.



I'm not presuming perfect information. In fact, I'm pointing out that the information is imperfect, hence the duping.
Yes you are. Because your inference of that which constitutes a deception-free market is the presence of perfect information.
You are not in a position to tell me what I'm presuming.


And the thing preventing an employee from getting that information is the lack of the prospective employer in giving it.
No. First, depriving someone of information is not the same as preventing them from getting it.
Yes it is since the only way to obtain that information is to receive it from the person that has it.


Second, as I noted above, you've yet to establish how you're able to ascertain that an employer is withholding information about the amount he would've offered.
I take it as a given that the babysitter wouldn't willingly accept a lower amount if a higher amount was offered. Ergo, whatever amount they settled on is necessarily the highest amount that was offered.


That's not what "circular reasoning" means.
You're right. I misread something you submitted. With that said, substantiate the reason that the differences between children and adults (both psychologically and biologically/physically) are a given.
No, I am not going to give you a crash course in human biology and development. You can take it as a given that children and adults are different biologically and psychologically or we can just cease the conversation.


The scenario is that they have taken a job for less money than they could have gotten it for. I am defining that as having been duped as no reasonable person would willingly do such a thing if they were aware of a better option.
Your argument is essentially that prospective employees couldn't willfully accept employment for less money in the face of higher offers; therefore, they're being deceived.
Not "couldn't" just that they "wouldn't" but otherwise, yes.

You haven't established how you'd discern the thoughts of an employer who's purposefully withholding information;
I don't need to do that. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which we've defined the constraints. That the employer could have offered more is a given in the scenario. If you object to that premise you should have done so a long time ago. Regardless, it's the scenario we are talking about.

second, you haven't established how being deceived is akin to doing something unwillingly despite your common sense definitions.
Yes I did.


The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative.
Then how does one determine "What benefits whom more?" if not within a subjective framework?
That would be a subjective judgement.


Not correct. Children often have times difficulty in realizing and articulating the precise nature of their desires.
That has nothing to do with content. You're talking about expression. Only they can appreciate the true nature of their desires.
Yes, the specific part you bolded is talking about expression. But that is not the entirety of my comment. To wit you glossed over the "in realizing" part.


I didn't say that a parent "wants" in place of its child. That is a ridiculous statement to make.
That's the logical extension of your premise. That is reductio ad absurdum #2.
You do not know what a reductio ad absurdum is despite my explaining it to you. To repeat, it is not merely an argument that results in a conclusion you personally find absurd. By definition, a reductio ad absurdum is an argument that leads to a necessary logical contradiction.


I'm saying that children often don't know what they want and part of being a parent is discerning the true nature of what they want.
No. Part of being a parent is filtering through that which the child wants, that which you've experienced makes the child happy and sad, and that which makes the child safe. You are the sire/mother; you are the custodian; you are its guardian; you are not your child's "whisperer."
Forgive me if I do not define my role as a parent by some obtuse stranger on the internet.



I wasn't speaking in a legal capacity. I stand by my statement.
Your statement has not been demonstrated to bear a significance other than a legal one.
Regardless, I am not speaking in a legal capacity, so attempting to bind me to a legal definition (regardless of similarity) is out of order.


Only if a thing can only exclusively have objective or subjective components, rather than a combination of both. This is not established.
That doesn't matter. The subjective theory of value posits that value is subjective, not a combination of both
Yes, I know. But your claim is that the soundness of the subjective theory implicitly excludes all other theories. That exclusion is only automatic if a thing can only have subjective and objective components. This is not established, ergo the exclusion of other theories is not automatic, even if we grant that value can have a subjective component.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Your definition is not correct
My definition is correct.

I would ask
You can ask.

that you do not edit the content of my statements when quoting them.
I didn't merely edit. I corrected.

Epistemological concerns are not relevant. We're talking about this scenario as omniscient third parties.
Epistemological concerns are most certainly relevant, and we're not taking about this scenario as omniscient third parties. If you're going to claim omniscience, then substantiate it.

I still don't know what it means to "forcefully keep" information away from someone. All you have to do to keep information away from someone is not give it. No "force" is required.
Or destroy it; or physically keep someone from accessing it (e.g. detention, false imprisonment, etc.)

"of or relating to the will or power of choosing"
All of which speaks to capacity and discretion, not a particular option.

A person can only choose among options they are aware of.
No. It only dictates the parameters of their options. It affects neither their ability to choose nor their discretion.

You are not in a position to tell me what I'm presuming.
Yes, I am. Your reasoning is present in your argument. As long as I discern said reasoning, I am in a position to tell you that which you are presuming.

Yes it is since the only way to obtain that information is to receive it from the person that has it.
And there's no way for you to know whether or not the information exists if the only source is withholding it. Therefore, you're in no position to conclude that information is being withheld. And no, assuming you're an omniscient third party does not suffice.

I take it as a given that the babysitter wouldn't willingly accept a lower amount if a higher amount was offered. Ergo, whatever amount they settled on is necessarily the highest amount that was offered.
So then why is a teenage babysitter "underpaid" if he or she works for $6?

No, I am not going to give you a crash course in human biology and development. You can take it as a given that children and adults are different biologically and psychologically or we can just cease the conversation.
I didn't ask you for a crash-course. I asked that you explain the reason the differences between adults and minors are a given. If you don't wish to substantiate your point, then you can drop the argument.

I don't need to do that. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which we've defined the constraints. That the employer could have offered more is a given in the scenario. If you object to that premise you should have done so a long time ago. Regardless, it's the scenario we are talking about.
No we're not. I gave you real-word examples. Any hypothetical was supplementary and meant to inform the context on which we base our contentions. You claimed that teenage babysitters working for $6 is underpaid. And to a larger point that anyone working for the lowest amount is being "duped." That's not a hypothetical scenario.

Yes I did.
No, you didn't. You're just gerrymandering words in service to your platitude.

That would be a subjective judgement.
So then how is it that you're concluding that minors bear an incapacity to negotiate to an extent which benefits them more, when you, and not they, are the subject of that assessment?

Yes, the specific part you bolded is talking about expression. But that is not the entirety of my comment.
Obviously. Did I not quote your entire comment?

To wit you glossed over the "in realizing" part.
I didn't gloss over it. I've already submitted a counterargument to your claim that children don't know/realize that which is in their best interests.

You do not know what a reductio ad absurdum is despite my explaining it to you.
I do know the description of a reductio ad absurdum, and your explanation is insufficient. But you can continue to tell me that wrong, it won't make a difference.

To repeat, it is not merely an argument that results in a conclusion you personally find absurd.
I do not personally find it absurd. Your conclusion is absurd. Your descriptions contradict definition. Hence, absurd.

By definition, a reductio ad absurdum is an argument that leads to a necessary logical contradiction.
That is not the description you offered before.

Forgive me if I do not define my role as a parent by some obtuse stranger on the internet.
How you deem yourself as a parent is of no consequence.

Regardless, I am not speaking in a legal capacity, so attempting to bind me to a legal definition (regardless of similarity) is out of order.
Once again, your statement has no significance other than a legal one. And since you refuse to, as you so ineptly put it, offer a "crash-course" on human biology (but in actuality, a substantiation that the differences are a given) then nothing you state beyond a legal context has substance.

Yes, I know. But your claim is that the soundness of the subjective theory implicitly excludes all other theories. That exclusion is only automatic if a thing can only have subjective and objective components. This is not established, ergo the exclusion of other theories is not automatic, even if we grant that value can have a subjective component.
The posit is that value is only subjective. Ergo, substantiation of the subjective theory of value would necessarily exclude all other theories which do not sustain said posit.



drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
No, I am not going to give you a crash course in human biology and development. You can take it as a given that children and adults are different biologically and psychologically or we can just cease the conversation.
I didn't ask you for a crash-course. I asked that you explain the reason the differences between adults and minors are a given. If you don't wish to substantiate your point, then you can drop the argument.
I'm not sure why you bothered to write out that long post when you were going to refuse to accept a condition for continuing an argument. Regardless, if and when you accept that children and adults have significant biological and psychological differences, we can continue.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
I'm not sure why you bothered to write out that long post when you were going to refuse to accept a condition for continuing an argument. Regardless, if and when you accept that children and adults have significant biological and psychological differences, we can continue.
Was that a reference to the entire argument? Nevertheless, I don't accept anything as a given when information to its veracity is not provided. It's fine. Dropping the argument is your prerogative.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Only standard-of-living is relevant to minimum wage.

Economics is irrelevant standard-of-living.

Clean air > clean water > clean food > clean sleep > orgasm >
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Standard of living.
Responsibility for oneself

Stepping outside the narrowing margins of social expectancy and social dependency.

And questioning the reality of everything.

And understanding the situation of the independent mass that is oneself.

And recognising the relative nanosecond moment that is existence.

And the relative stupidity of the God Dollar.

Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
1 & 2 is: the government.
What makes the government trustworthy for this complex task of coming up with a very good criteria for determining whether or not someone is getting duped when it comes to making their own autonomous decision to work for an employee at their own risk? What happens if the government comes up with a bad criteria for this that we are all forced to follow?

they collude with other businesses to force employees to offer shitty deals. This isn't speculation, this is reality. This is what happens, historically, without protections. Your hypothetical examples are overridden by reality.
If there are already laws in place to prevent such behavior, then we don't need any other extra arbitrary measures against what you call duping.

What is more likely to happen is that they see that this teenager is easily duped and offer them the same price or marginally better.
Again, that's competition, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's how businesses compete for employees, by offering something that they believe (or know) the employee will accept. 

it's not telling the teenager they can't work that job. It's telling the employer they have to pay more for that job.
And if the employer is not able nor willing to pay more for that job then the teenager can't work that job, correct? So you are in fact telling the teenager they can't work that job if the employer is not able nor willing to pay more.

I didn't say anything about anyone's feelings.
When I asked: are you going to violate their freedom to make their own choices that affect themselves because you see them getting "duped" and you aren't feeling happy about that?

Your response was: Yes.

That means that we would have to take your feelings into account when making contracts between employers and employees, because if you aren't feeling happy about our contract because you feel someone is getting "duped" and that employers must be forced to either pay more or fire that employee.

Okay, so. I enter into a contract with a 5-year old where I give him a snickers bar and he pays me a penny on the first day 2 pennies on the next, then 4 pennies after that, each day doubling the amount of pennies for a year.

To you this is a perfectly fine economic arrangement the government shouldn't be involved in except to enforce it if one party defaults?
When it comes to legally binding agreements, certain people are always considered to lack the legal ability (or "capacity") to contract. As a legal matter, basically they are presumed not to know what they're doing. These people--legal minors and the mentally ill, for example--are placed into a special category. If they enter into a contract, the agreement is considered "voidable" by them (as the person who lacked capacity to enter the agreement in the first place). Voidable means that the person who lacked capacity to enter the contact can either end the contract or permit it to go ahead as agreed on. This protects the party who lacks capacity from being forced to go through with a deal that takes advantage of his or her lack of savvy.


In other words, there are already measures in place to prevent these types of situations where your 5-year olds get forced into a slave contract with no way out. If for whatever reason the 5-year old is actually very intelligent and knew what they were doing, they could proceed with the contract if they wanted to, but they would still have the option to change their minds and opt-out of the contract to void it if they realized that it wasn't fair to keep losing pennies every day.

I don't see why we need any more arbitrary measures like minimum wage increases, on top of all that.

226 days later

sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I've always said a person willing to work for minimum wage is worth every penny.

25 days later

sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I have no convincing argument to suggest that minimum wage should not be 0. Minimum wage workers owe me money for all the shit they fuck up.