drafterman

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.

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?

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

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?

Circular reasoning. Your "given" is misinformed.

Presuming givens is not substantiation.

And by which metric are you quantifying this?

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.

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.

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.

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 disprove all the other theories of value. Substantiating the subjective theory of value necessarily excludes all others.

Yes

So then explain how they are being deceived.

There are people who work for less. Are the terms of payment not made clear?

Is information on higher paying employment forcefully withheld?

If no one would willingly work for less, how is it that there are those working for less?

Because of the existence of other theories of valuation and that fact that no one has been awarded a Nobel Prize in economics for definitively proving one correct and the others incorrect.

It's mere existence doesn't make it sound. And accreditation is irrelevant to matters of fact.

There are immense biological and psychological differences.

Yes, but human beings aren't appliances. Development is nebulous and often abstract. Any law that seeks to dictate these differences rather than observe them is arbitrary.

Because they were duped.

You've yet to substantiate this conclusion.

Experience, exactly, something adults have massive amounts more than children, on average.

One does not need "experience" to sustain an interest. The interest may change with experience, but it's not dictated by experience. Otherwise, every retrospective analysis of one's past decisions will determine that he or she has been deceived throughout their lives up until that point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)

Select one you believe is sound. I'll then provide a counterargument.

For one, whether or not the agreement is fair to each party involved.

If the parties, once again, willfully agree, isn't fairness implicit?

If dinosaurs did not exist when humans were around. Then why do ancient books like the bible describe dragons when humans were a thing.

What about the story of how a dragon kidnapped a princess and the brave knight has to slay it.

since they talked about killing dragons surely they saw them.

why else would they now what they are. It was not until the early 1900 when Dino were discovered. Chinese story's have Chinese dragons. they had no connection to places like the middle east. plus there are those Europe area story's of brave knights slaying dragons

why are dinosaur footprints have human footprints in them

According to evolution human have only been a thing for 2000 thousand years and Dino 336 million years ago.But almost every culture describes giant lizard that flys and breaths fire. Sorry i do not think so

Clearly they are just making up these numbers

Hard Atheists/Anti-Theists are dumb. Change my mind.

In the free market, there will be cases where people making a certain wage get duped, there will be cases where people making a certain wage are not getting duped, and there will be cases where you can't always tell for sure whether or not someone is getting duped (it may look like they're getting duped but maybe they're not). That's a side effect of having a free market with limited government interference. It does not mean that free market capitalism is a bad thing in any way just because of this potential side effect.

In a lot of these cases, you aren't going to be able to easily tell if someone is getting duped or not. Even if you do determine and prove that someone is getting duped, you have to determine what the best solution is which is also difficult.

And before you can claim that people are getting duped, we should first establish 3 things:

1) who should best be in charge of deciding whether or not an employee or contractor is getting duped, and why are they best suited for the task of determining that?

2) what criteria should we use to determine if an employee or contractor is getting duped, and why should that criteria be used over something else?

3) what if the employee or contractor does not care if they're getting duped and wants you to stay out of their business and mind your own business? 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?

Let me explain why each of these 3 things are important.

We live in a world where people will get "duped" all the time in a variety of different situations. In a free market, this should be allowed, because business can be forced to compete for valuable employees by offering what they believe or know are the best deals to that employee.

Like Athias said, "the only things that matter are the goals and interests of the parties involved. If the teenager is satisfied with accepting employment at $6 and the adults are satisfied with offering employment at $6, then there's no disadvantage or deception. If the teen doesn't agree, then the teen preferably would seek a better arrangement with another party."

Using this example, if the teenager and employee agree for 6 dollars, then there isn't any problem here. If things change in the future where the teenager might eventually need more money, that's a different story, but right now, the teenager has agreed to work for this amount of money. Any business that believes the teenager is getting duped can feel free to offer 'em a better paying job, or one with better benefits, and who knows?

If you step in and tell this teenager that they should not be working this job, you better either have proof, or have a business of your own that you can hire them for, that offers them a better deal. Otherwise, you leave them alone. Even if you're right about them being duped, they aren't going to quit their job and do nothing if you aren't participating in the competition with businesses for that teenager.

If the teenager is happy, and the employer is happy, but you're not happy because you feel they are getting duped, yet you have no business of your own to offer them, then why should they, or anyone for that matter, care that you aren't feeling happy? Why is it their problem whether or not their exchange of labor, money, benefits, and other valuables does not fit your subjective criteria?

The free market does not care about your feelings. The free market does not care if you feel that someone is getting duped in a certain situation and should not be. Employers and employees that agreed, and are satisfied, with the wages, hours, and other benefits that they freely agreed upon are not going to care about how you feel if you aren't offering the employee a better deal.

With arbitrary anti-duping measures that someone establishes, these employees and employers not only have to forge a contract that they can agree upon, but they must also forge one that you agree upon too, and one that agrees with your subjective standards. These subjective standards mean that employees and employers also have to take your feelings into account when forging a contract.