There’s a system that ensures everyone gets the fruit of their labor, and that if someone is going hungry they are supported by the community instead of being left to die in the streets.
If everybody gets 100% of the fruit of their labor, then where do you get the necessary resources to subsidize others without taking it from other people?
There are different employment models, all have pros and cons. There is no one perfect solution, or if there is it’s certainly not communism.
The model of employment law you’re used to, employment as a market, it works most of the time. But it only works insist as there are strong legal protections for employees.
The employer has a much stronger bargaining position than the employee. You need to read some economics to see why. In a free market, employees get exploited. Is the past this has led to slave wages, malnourishment, etc.
The only defence the employee has is legal protections. He has a minimum wage so he won’t starve. He has maximum hours so he won’t be worked to death. But there are other spaces where he doesn’t have legal protections, so he will get exploited.
I can tell you that I’ve read enough economics to understand a bit the human action. Free market is the stage in which people find the best avaliable options for themselves in its particular context because only you know your preferences and your limitations and therefor you are the only one capable of decide in your own behalf.
The idea that it produces “slave wadges” is a mith, sustained by the counterintuitive nature of the economics, the natural condition of human beings was extreme poverty, never in human history the people (including the poorest) experiemce such increase in living standars, just look at the data without the glasses of ideology. You have to compare apples with apples.
Someone who went to work 12 hs in a factory without vacations look like slavery if compared with our modern standar of living, but that same people before that was working in the fields just to feed him and his family, a poor harvest and they re done. In that context it is obvious the improovment thoug from our perspective it is hard to see.
Laws and regulations, (when imposed by force) don’t work, and most of the time just produce a worst outcome, like minimum wedge produce unemploiment for the people who most need to enter the market, those who his only way to compete is lowering their wage because they are still developing their habilities.
This things are complicate dude, extremely interesting but counterintuitive to say the least. Don’t read me in the wrong way please, I’m trying to say it like a constructive critic frome someone who had to throw away what used tho belive in the face of some facts that didn’t fit, If you think you have the whole picture, you probably don’t.
Yes it’s also hard to use examples from other times/places, because we can cherry pick, and anyway we never have the full context.
Have you ever tried to negotiate with an employer? Try saying “here are the wages and conditions I’m proposing. take it or leave it.” It’s the employer who has the power in the relationship, that he can do exactly that. Most of the time, it’s easy for an employer to replace employees, but it’s hard for an employee to find another job. Even worse - an employer being one man down is not a problem, but being unable to find a job, even for a short time, is a disaster.
That’s why employers can often negotiate new workers down to long hours, and down below a living wage.
There are other solutions to this problem apart from minimum wage - cooperatives, unions, etc. But min wage is the conventional one.
minimum wedge produce unemploiment
This is also an interesting and complicated issue. You could discuss for hours whether that’s true or if the opposite is true. IMO it can work either way, depending on the exact industry and economy you’re talking about.
“Yes it’s also hard to use examples from other times/places, because we can cherry pick, and anyway we never have the full context”
Right! That why exchange between totally oposit or different minded people helps to broat the hole picture
(Don’t know how you quote correctly here)
“Have you ever tried to negotiate with an employer? Try saying “here are the wages and conditions I’m proposing. take it or leave it.” It’s the employer who has the power in the relationship, that he can do exactly that”
Mmm don’t be so sure, is good to consider that we people are really risk averse animals, different studies have shown that(don’t remember right now the titles but I can look it out) we tend to think the worst case (example: me negotiating my wadge and my boss saying just “No” and easily replacing me)
But in a context of the market, fring you isn’t a painless move because if someone choosed you for a job before anyone else it means that choosing other wolud have been sub optimal, so if your boss gets rid of you is loosing that difference in confort/performance/confidence in your work/… he is certainly loosing something thoug maybe not that much as you, but is still an incentive to keep cooperating with you.
Employers tend to be the visible face and the responsable for meeting the production goals so one man down may be critical, on certain cases, is the difference between meeting the goals or not or loose a client. Certainly is no a 1 to 1 ratio in the negotiating power, but are at all times strong incentives to cooperate and become more usefull for others you can negotiate a better wadge if you are the better at some really usefull task, and so on)
Nice exchange of ideas, hit me with a DM if you want further discusion on the topics 👍
There’s a system that ensures everyone gets the fruit of their labor, and that if someone is going hungry they are supported by the community instead of being left to die in the streets.
May I ask how?
If everybody gets 100% of the fruit of their labor, then where do you get the necessary resources to subsidize others without taking it from other people?
There are different employment models, all have pros and cons. There is no one perfect solution, or if there is it’s certainly not communism.
The model of employment law you’re used to, employment as a market, it works most of the time. But it only works insist as there are strong legal protections for employees.
The employer has a much stronger bargaining position than the employee. You need to read some economics to see why. In a free market, employees get exploited. Is the past this has led to slave wages, malnourishment, etc.
The only defence the employee has is legal protections. He has a minimum wage so he won’t starve. He has maximum hours so he won’t be worked to death. But there are other spaces where he doesn’t have legal protections, so he will get exploited.
Thee argument here is about that.
I can tell you that I’ve read enough economics to understand a bit the human action. Free market is the stage in which people find the best avaliable options for themselves in its particular context because only you know your preferences and your limitations and therefor you are the only one capable of decide in your own behalf.
The idea that it produces “slave wadges” is a mith, sustained by the counterintuitive nature of the economics, the natural condition of human beings was extreme poverty, never in human history the people (including the poorest) experiemce such increase in living standars, just look at the data without the glasses of ideology. You have to compare apples with apples.
Someone who went to work 12 hs in a factory without vacations look like slavery if compared with our modern standar of living, but that same people before that was working in the fields just to feed him and his family, a poor harvest and they re done. In that context it is obvious the improovment thoug from our perspective it is hard to see.
Laws and regulations, (when imposed by force) don’t work, and most of the time just produce a worst outcome, like minimum wedge produce unemploiment for the people who most need to enter the market, those who his only way to compete is lowering their wage because they are still developing their habilities.
This things are complicate dude, extremely interesting but counterintuitive to say the least. Don’t read me in the wrong way please, I’m trying to say it like a constructive critic frome someone who had to throw away what used tho belive in the face of some facts that didn’t fit, If you think you have the whole picture, you probably don’t.
The dude abides.
Yes it’s also hard to use examples from other times/places, because we can cherry pick, and anyway we never have the full context.
Have you ever tried to negotiate with an employer? Try saying “here are the wages and conditions I’m proposing. take it or leave it.” It’s the employer who has the power in the relationship, that he can do exactly that. Most of the time, it’s easy for an employer to replace employees, but it’s hard for an employee to find another job. Even worse - an employer being one man down is not a problem, but being unable to find a job, even for a short time, is a disaster.
That’s why employers can often negotiate new workers down to long hours, and down below a living wage.
There are other solutions to this problem apart from minimum wage - cooperatives, unions, etc. But min wage is the conventional one.
This is also an interesting and complicated issue. You could discuss for hours whether that’s true or if the opposite is true. IMO it can work either way, depending on the exact industry and economy you’re talking about.
“Yes it’s also hard to use examples from other times/places, because we can cherry pick, and anyway we never have the full context”
Right! That why exchange between totally oposit or different minded people helps to broat the hole picture
(Don’t know how you quote correctly here)
“Have you ever tried to negotiate with an employer? Try saying “here are the wages and conditions I’m proposing. take it or leave it.” It’s the employer who has the power in the relationship, that he can do exactly that”
Mmm don’t be so sure, is good to consider that we people are really risk averse animals, different studies have shown that(don’t remember right now the titles but I can look it out) we tend to think the worst case (example: me negotiating my wadge and my boss saying just “No” and easily replacing me)
But in a context of the market, fring you isn’t a painless move because if someone choosed you for a job before anyone else it means that choosing other wolud have been sub optimal, so if your boss gets rid of you is loosing that difference in confort/performance/confidence in your work/… he is certainly loosing something thoug maybe not that much as you, but is still an incentive to keep cooperating with you. Employers tend to be the visible face and the responsable for meeting the production goals so one man down may be critical, on certain cases, is the difference between meeting the goals or not or loose a client. Certainly is no a 1 to 1 ratio in the negotiating power, but are at all times strong incentives to cooperate and become more usefull for others you can negotiate a better wadge if you are the better at some really usefull task, and so on)
Nice exchange of ideas, hit me with a DM if you want further discusion on the topics 👍