As minimum wage rises, people with less experience or less legal privileges (people under 18 have to have more oversight, work less hours), are being overlooked. This causes younger people to be be unable to get a first job. An effective minimum wage (binding price floor), makes the companies total costs go up, companies look for ways to mitigate this by giving employees less hours (if you don't work a certain amount of hours they're not required to give you benefits), and by cutting benefits for full time employees. This does not benefit the businesses or their workers. By allowing the minimum wage to be negotiable people can work for nothing while they are being trained, or work for less if they are less experienced. This allows more inexperienced workers to get into the job market without displacing experienced workers.
Minimum Wage should be zero, change my mind.
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@liahamil
I MIGHT come to agree with this if it weren't for the current immigration situation in the United States. Both legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants are flooding into the job market, and they will accept (and thus usurp) some of the lowest wage jobs imaginable compared to their white counterparts. The result is:
1. Hispanics being exploited at horrible wages.
2. White, inexperienced workers will be less able to get low paying jobs compared to their Hispanic counterparts, because they are less willing to work at the lowest wages.
3. More fuel to the fire for illegal immigration, perpetuating human trafficking, drug trafficking, etc.
Instead, I would argue for the existence of a pretty low minimum wage, still managing to avoid all of the above.
people can work for nothing while they are being trained,
Slavery is illegal and it should stay that way.
or work for less if they are less experienced.
We have also abolished sweatshops as well.
-->
@drafterman
Working for "nothing" isn't slavery.Slavery is illegal and it should stay that way.
We have also abolished sweatshops as well.
Are those the only jobs offered below minimum wage?
-->
@Athias
Slavery is illegal and it should stay that way.Working for "nothing" isn't slavery.
It's either slavery or volunteerism. Volunteerism already exists in the status quo so the only new thing that could be proposed here would be slavery.
We have also abolished sweatshops as well.Are those the only jobs offered below minimum wage?
Yes, or something so similar that disputing the differences would be an exercise in pointless and irrelevant semantics.
-->
@drafterman
Except "slavery" isn't characterized by the amount for which one works; it's characterized by de jure or de facto ownership. If I were to "own" another person, I could pay them $100 an hour, and they would still be my slave.It's either slavery or volunteerism. Volunteerism already exists in the status quo so the only new thing that could be proposed here would be slavery.
Yes, or something so similar that disputing the differences would be an exercise in pointless and irrelevant semantics.
Let's test that theory: according to you, a 16 year-old babysitter who works for six dollars an hour is essentially working in a proverbial "sweatshop"?
-->
@Athias
Except "slavery" isn't characterized by the amount for which one works; it's characterized by de jure or de facto ownership. If I were to "own" another person, I could pay them $100 an hour, and they would still be my slave.
One of the primary objections to slavery (at the time) from the north wasn't the immorality of owning people but rather the economic impact of having a class of unpaid individuals. The "forced free work" was a significant factor in the issue of slavery in the US, one that we cannot ignore. And if we remove the "forced" part, then it's just volunteerism as I said, which is already allowed. So either the OP is redundantly suggesting we need to allow for something that is already allowed or they are suggesting something akin to slavery.
Let's test that theory: according to you, a 16 year-old babysitter who works for six dollars an hour is essentially working in a proverbial "sweatshop"?
Yes.
-->
@drafterman
One of the primary objections to slavery (at the time) from the north wasn't the immorality of owning people but rather the economic impact of having a class of unpaid individuals. The "forced free work" was a significant factor in the issue of slavery in the US, one that we cannot ignore.
It may have been a significant factor in the northern public's evaluation of slavery, but nonetheless, slavery is still the de jure and/or de factor ownership of another person. It's isn't the amount that informs slavery; it's the fact that a person can "own" another person with impunity.
So either the OP is redundantly suggesting we need to allow for something that is already allowed or they are suggesting something akin to slavery.
No, the OP is suggesting that no employer be bound to a legal minimum (or a minimum of 0.) He's not directly suggesting that it be legal for one to work at the amount of 0. Remember "minimum" is a relative scale, not an absolute one.
Yes.
Define sweatshop.
-->
@Athias
It may have been a significant factor in the northern public's evaluation of slavery, but nonetheless, slavery is still the de jure and/or de factor ownership of another person. It's isn't the amount that informs slavery; it's the fact that a person can "own" another person with impunity.
Okay.
No, the OP is suggesting that no employer be bound to a legal minimum (or a minimum of 0.) He's not directly suggesting that it be legal for one to work at the amount of 0. Remember "minimum" is a relative scale, not an absolute one.
I disagree. 0 is about as absolute as you can get.
Define sweatshop.
"Sweatshop is a pejorative term for a workplace that has very poor, socially unacceptable working conditions. The work may be difficult, dangerous, climatically challenged or underpaid." (Emphasis mine). And, depending on the kids being watched, difficult, dangerous and climatically challenged also applies!
-->
@drafterman
I disagree. 0 is about as absolute as you can get.
Unless the person pays to work. But that's not what I was talking about. 0 is merely the starting point. A person can work for 1 cent of 1 million dollars; that's the point.
"Sweatshop is a pejorative term for a workplace that has very poor, socially unacceptable working conditions. The work may be difficult, dangerous, climatically challenged or underpaid." (Emphasis mine). And, depending on the kids being watched, difficult, dangerous and climatically challenged also applies!
So how does a 16 year-old's babysitting for six dollars fit that description? (And there are no contingencies because you replied to my question with a mere yes.)
-->
@Athias
Unless the person pays to work. But that's not what I was talking about. 0 is merely the starting point. A person can work for 1 cent of 1 million dollars; that's the point.
Op is literally talking about working "for nothing while they are being trained."
For nothing being, absolutely, not relatively, 0.
So how does a 16 year-old's babysitting for six dollars fit that description? (And there are no contingencies because you replied to my question with a mere yes.)
Oh, I thought the deliberate and conspicuous emphasis that I added (then called explicit attention to) would make it abundantly obvious: paying them 6 dollars an hour is underpaying them. Grossly so.
-->
@drafterman
Op is literally talking about working "for nothing while they are being trained."For nothing being, absolutely, not relatively, 0.
We're not talking about the number 0. We're talking about the "minimum" which the OP suggests should go as low as zero. Essentially, OP's argument is this: w (wages) ≥ 0 (relative); not w (wages) = 0 (absolute.)
Oh, I thought the deliberate and conspicuous emphasis that I added (then called explicit attention to) would make it abundantly obvious: paying them 6 dollars an hour is underpaying them. Grossly so.
How much should they get paid?
-->
@Athias
<br>We're not talking about the number 0. We're talking about the "minimum" which the OP suggests should go as low as zero. Essentially, OP's argument is this: w (wages) ≥ 0 (relative); not w (wages) = 0 (absolute.)
Either this scenario allows for the existence of people working for nothing or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there is no reason to drop it to 0 in the first place. If it does, then my objection stands.
How much should they get paid?
We usually pay ours $15-$20/hour.
-->
@drafterman
Either this scenario allows for the existence of people working for nothing or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there is no reason to drop it to 0 in the first place. If it does, then my objection stands.
Yes it allows for the possibility for one to work at $0. But once again, it's a starting point. He isn't presenting your specious dichotomy of slavery or volunteerism.
We usually pay ours $15-$20/hour.
And this amount isn't at all subjective?
-->
@Athias
Yes it allows for the possibility for one to work at $0. But once again, it's a starting point. He isn't presenting your specious dichotomy of slavery or volunteerism.
Rejecting the qualifier of specious, I presented that dichotomy. I never said the OP did.
And this amount isn't at all subjective?
What do you mean?
-->
@drafterman
Rejecting the qualifier of specious, I presented that dichotomy. I never said the OP did.
So then what is your contention? Because clearly volunteerism or "slavery"--informing my characterization of your dichotomy as "specious"--is a non sequitur.
What do you mean?
According to which standard do you pay your babysitter? Did you calculate all of his or her living costs and determine that he or she ought to be paid anywhere between $15-20? Or did you arbitrarily choose that amount based on your babysitter's, as well as your own, preferences?
My point is, if the 16 year-old babysitter agrees to work for $6 an hour, and his or her employers agree to pay him or her $6 an hour, how is he or she being "underpaid"? Are there considerations outside the subjective preferences of the involved parties that should be taken into account?
-->
@Athias
So then what is your contention? Because clearly volunteerism or "slavery"--informing my characterization of your dichotomy as "specious"--is a non sequitur.
That is my contention. OP is suggesting allowance of a situation that is either redundant (volunteerism) and therefor unnecessary or a situation that is abhorrent (slavery) and therefore.
According to which standard do you pay your babysitter? Did you calculate all of his or her living costs and determine that he or she ought to be paid anywhere between $15-20? Or did you arbitrarily choose that amount based on your babysitter's, as well as your own, preferences?
It's the going rate in this area.
My point is, if the 16 year-old babysitter agrees to work for $6 an hour, and his or her employers agree to pay him or her $6 an hour, how is he or she being "underpaid"?
Because $6 is less than the worth of babysitting services anywhere.
Are there considerations outside the subjective preferences of the involved parties that should be taken into account?
Yes.
-->
@drafterman
That is my contention. OP is suggesting allowance of a situation that is either redundant (volunteerism) and therefor unnecessary or a situation that is abhorrent (slavery) and therefore.
We've already established that to which you refer is not slavery. Hence, non sequitur.
It's the going rate in this area.
Fair enough.
Because $6 is less than the worth of babysitting services anywhere.
No, it's not. Teenage babysitters are private contractors who are often paid cash. Some reports have their pay as high as $30 and as low as $6.
Yes.
Please elaborate.
-->
@Athias
No, it's not. Teenage babysitters are private contractors who are often paid cash. Some reports have their pay as high as $30 and as low as $6.
I couldn't find a rate lower than $11. Regardless, I fully admit that plenty of people are duped into working well below the value of their labor or service.
Please elaborate.
Why? Are you denying existence of factors outside "subjective preferences of the involved parties" or are you just personally interested in mine?
-->
@drafterman
I couldn't find a rate lower than $11
Regardless, I fully admit that plenty of people are duped into working well below the value of their labor or service.
How are they "duped"? Do they not understand the difference between $6 and more? The value of their labor is not in the least bit objective. Its value in the labor market is determined by the amount someone else is willing to pay for it meeting the amount for which you're willing to sell it.
Why? Are you denying existence of factors outside "subjective preferences of the involved parties" or are you just personally interested in mine?
Neither. You've stated that $6 is underpaid. If the teenage babysitter agrees to this, and the employers agree to this, what else should be considered?
-->
@Athias
How are they "duped"? Do they not understand the difference between $6 and more? The value of their labor is not in the least bit objective. Its value in the labor market is determined by the amount someone else is willing to pay for it meeting the amount for which you're willing to sell it.
Given this extremely narrow definition of value, I would say that "duped" would be them being convinced to take the job for the lowest value in this range.
Both buyers and sellers are "willing" to buy and sell within a range. The buyer presumably has maximum and the seller a minimum. It is more likely that these ranges overlap rather than terminate on a single exact number. If the buyer's max is, say, $20/hour and the seller's minimum is, say, $5/hour, then the "value" of their service would be between $5 and $20/hour as any number in that range is a mutually agreeable amount.
Clearly the buyer wants the lower end and the seller would want the higher end. A "fair" value I would think would be at least as much as the market average. I reject the notion that a 16 year old and an adult (or adults) negotiate on an even playing field. A teenager with little to no real world experience is at an inherent disadvantage and the "duping" comes from the exploitation by the adults in using that disadvantage to vie for a lower price.
But, again, this is all assuming that value is only determined by mutually agreed upon price ranges. Subjective theory of value isn't the only theory out there and I don't feel it's the end-all-be-all when it comes to such valuations.
Neither. You've stated that $6 is underpaid. If the teenage babysitter agrees to this, and the employers agree to this, what else should be considered?
"Should" is a loaded term. There are things that "can" be considered, such as the specific duties required of the babysitter, the ages and number of the kids involved, the temperaments of the kids involved, the day of week, the time of day, whether or not the babysitter requires or can supply transportation, etc...
-->
@drafterman
Given this extremely narrow definition of value, I would say that "duped" would be them being convinced to take the job for the lowest value in this range.
That's convenient. How does accepting the lowest value suggest deception?
Both buyers and sellers are "willing" to buy and sell within a range. The buyer presumably has maximum and the seller a minimum. It is more likely that these ranges overlap rather than terminate on a single exact number. If the buyer's max is, say, $20/hour and the seller's minimum is, say, $5/hour, then the "value" of their service would be between $5 and $20/hour as any number in that range is a mutually agreeable amount.
The value is the amount at which the transaction occurs. Using your example, it can fall withing the range you suggested, but if they both agree to $5, then the value is $5. If they agree to $20, then the value is $20.
Clearly the buyer wants the lower end and the seller would want the higher end. A "fair" value I would think would be at least as much as the market average.
A "fair" value is the amount to which they both agree. It is their interests which matter most in their contract, not those of anyone else.
I reject the notion that a 16 year old and an adult (or adults) negotiate on an even playing field.
You can reject it; but there's no necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. The adolescent sells labor; the adult purchases it. What else needs to be negotiated?
A teenager with little to no real world experience is at an inherent disadvantage and the "duping" comes from the exploitation by the adults in using that disadvantage to vie for a lower price.
Specious argument. None of that matters; 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. I would however not suggest a price floor be imposed dictating all legal arrangements.
But, again, this is all assuming that value is only determined by mutually agreed upon price ranges. Subjective theory of value isn't the only theory out there and I don't feel it's the end-all-be-all when it comes to such valuations.
Subjective theory of value is the one sound theory.
"Should" is a loaded term. There are things that "can" be considered, such as the specific duties required of the babysitter, the ages and number of the kids involved, the temperaments of the kids involved, the day of week, the time of day, whether or not the babysitter requires or can supply transportation, etc...
And you're under the presumption that a teenager doesn't consider these contingencies before accepting employment for $6 an hour?
-->
@Athias
Given this extremely narrow definition of value, I would say that "duped" would be them being convinced to take the job for the lowest value in this range.That's convenient. 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.
Both buyers and sellers are "willing" to buy and sell within a range. The buyer presumably has maximum and the seller a minimum. It is more likely that these ranges overlap rather than terminate on a single exact number. If the buyer's max is, say, $20/hour and the seller's minimum is, say, $5/hour, then the "value" of their service would be between $5 and $20/hour as any number in that range is a mutually agreeable amount.The value is the amount at which the transaction occurs. Using your example, it can fall withing the range you suggested, but if they both agree to $5, then the value is $5. If they agree to $20, then the value is $20.Clearly the buyer wants the lower end and the seller would want the higher end. A "fair" value I would think would be at least as much as the market average.A "fair" value is the amount to which they both agree. It is their interests which matter most in their contract, not those of anyone else.
I fundamentally disagree with your theory of valuation.
I reject the notion that a 16 year old and an adult (or adults) negotiate on an even playing field.You can reject it; but there's no necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. The adolescent sells labor; the adult purchases it. What else needs to be negotiated?
Of course there is a necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. It's one of the reasons why contracts involving minors are voidable at any time on behalf of the minor.
A teenager with little to no real world experience is at an inherent disadvantage and the "duping" comes from the exploitation by the adults in using that disadvantage to vie for a lower price.Specious argument. None of that matters; 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. I would however not suggest a price floor be imposed dictating all legal arrangements.
People can be duped into "agreeing" to less than satisfactory arrangements. Happens all the time.
But, again, this is all assuming that value is only determined by mutually agreed upon price ranges. Subjective theory of value isn't the only theory out there and I don't feel it's the end-all-be-all when it comes to such valuations.Subjective theory of value is the one sound theory.
I disagree.
"Should" is a loaded term. There are things that "can" be considered, such as the specific duties required of the babysitter, the ages and number of the kids involved, the temperaments of the kids involved, the day of week, the time of day, whether or not the babysitter requires or can supply transportation, etc...And you're under the presumption that a teenager doesn't consider these contingencies before accepting employment for $6 an hour?
No.
-->
@drafterman
Because no one would willingly accept a lower value if they believed they could get it for a higher one.
Even if they considered the means and provisions of their prospective employer?
I fundamentally disagree with your theory of valuation.
Why is that?
Of course there is a necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. It's one of the reasons why contracts involving minors are voidable at any time on behalf of the minor.
Saying that "there's a reason," is not same as giving the reason. And the disparity between adults and minors is merely arbitrary. It's a manifestation of the delusion known as Parens Patriae.
People can be duped into "agreeing" to less than satisfactory arrangements. Happens all the time.
If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place? If they in retrospect determined that they could've done better, that's not deception; that's experience.
I disagree.
You believe there are other sound theories? Please list one other.
No.
So what else ought to be considered outside of each party's willful agreement?
-->
@Athias
Because no one would willingly accept a lower value if they believed they could get it for a higher one.Even if they considered the means and provisions of their prospective employer?
Yes
I fundamentally disagree with your theory of valuation.Why is that?
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.
Of course there is a necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. It's one of the reasons why contracts involving minors are voidable at any time on behalf of the minor.Saying that "there's a reason," is not same as giving the reason. And the disparity between adults and minors it merely arbitrary. It's a manifestation of the delusion known as Parens Patriae.
I disagree that the disparity between adults and minors is merely arbitrary. There are immense biological and psychological differences.
People can be duped into "agreeing" to less than satisfactory arrangements. Happens all the time.If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place?
Because they were duped.
If they in retrospect determined that they could've done better, that's not deception; that experience.
Experience, exactly, something adults have massive amounts more than children, on average. I categorize using one's advanced experience to exploit another's lack of experience to be "duping."
I disagree.You believe there are other sound theories? Please list one other.
No.So what else ought to be considered outside of each party's willful agreement?
For one, whether or not the agreement is fair to each party involved. Again, one of the reasons contracts can be voided is because they are too one-sided (unconscionable.)
-->
@drafterman
People can be duped into "agreeing" to less than satisfactory arrangements. Happens all the time.If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place?Because they were duped.
Not only is an argument like this very difficult, if not impossible, to prove, but this so-called "problem" of people getting "duped" is also very difficult, if not impossible, to address.
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.
For example, if businessA offers to pay you 20 dollars an hour while you work for them 3 hours a day on a certain task, and businessB offers to pay you 35 dollars an hour while you work for them 6 hours a day doing the same kind of work as businessA, you will have the freedom of choosing which business to work for.
Normally, it would make sense to choose to work for businessA since you would technically make more money in the long run, but the decision to work for businessA and not businessB should be the employee's, not someone else's. This is because there may also be reasons and factors as to why people would prefer to work for businessB even though businessA offers more money. Maybe the employee doesn't have the time to work for more than 3 hours a day and wants to do other things while still being able to work to earn a little money. Maybe businessB is physically closer to where the employee lives so the employee would have to spend less gas to drive to businessB. Maybe businessB offers other benefits to attract the employee, such as a free scholarship or something. Maybe businessB is just more friendlier than businessA. Maybe businessB is just more popular than businessA overall. There could be all kinds of different factors.
So if the employee chooses to work for businessB, will the person/people who decide that the employee is getting duped take all of these other external or hidden factors into account when making that decision, or will the person/people in charge of deciding if there is any duping going on take only money per hour into account, and nothing else that the business(es) offered to attract the employee?
If the employee chooses to work for businessB, and businessA still wants that employee, then businessA will have to compete for that employee by maybe offering an even higher wage or something, or maybe some better benefits, to attract the employee.
Then businessB will have to offer more to attract the employee, and businessA will have to offer more, and so on.
This is how competition works for businesses. Whoever can offer the most benefits, pay the highest wages, and/or attract the employee in the best way, wins that employee. In the case of the teenager who is satisfied working 6 dollars, the business that hired them probably had to compete with other businesses for that teenager, and the teenager ultimately chose to work for that business because they were most attracted to that business.
By trying to implement and enforce so-called anti-duping measures that are subjective and/or flawed, you hurt competition, which is what the economy needs.
In a free market, people should be allowed to make choices, even if it is, or at least seems like, the wrong choice, or if it seems like they're getting duped, when it comes to working for a certain wage. In a free market, people should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from the consequences of those mistakes in order to improve. people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is best for them. In a free market, people should be allowed to weight the upsides and downsides when choosing which business to work with, and how much they want to work for, with minimal government interference.
Because of this, it's going to be very hard, to come up with a good criteria to determine if someone is getting duped, and even harder to determine who should be in charge of deciding who is and who is not getting duped in such a complex competition of different business and employees, with all these different factors to consider. A lot of people, including myself, do not and will not trust the government to make the best decision on whether or not someone is getting duped, nor will they agree with the criteria that whoever is in charge establishes.
If you, as a business, believes, or knows, someone that is getting exploited or "duped" working for another business, you can always encourage them to leave that business and work for you instead, and offer more benefits or wages for that person, in order to attract them to your business. That is an example of competition, which leads to businesses improving to attract employees. It's better for businesses to compete for employees using what they offer to attract those employees, rather than an arbitrary minimum wage law that can hurt competition.
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? Maybe this teenager chose this specific 6-dollar job because they offered something like a scholarship, or because it's close to where they live, or because of some other external factor that made them decide that this was a good deal. There could be many reasons why this teenager chose this 6-dollar job. There could have been a business that offered more money, but this teenager did not look at only money. They looked at others things to consider, and so should you.
Wages and hours are not the only things people think about when looking for work. The economy is not that simple. Any business that can offer the best deal to an employee, and convince that employee that it's the best deal and not someone else, wins that employee. That's not duping. That's competition\.
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.
-->
@drafterman
People can be duped into "agreeing" to less than satisfactory arrangements. Happens all the time.If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place?Because they were duped.
Not only is an argument like this very difficult, if not impossible, to prove, but this so-called "problem" of people getting "duped" is also very difficult, if not impossible, to address.
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.
For example, if businessA offers to pay you 20 dollars an hour while you work for them 3 hours a day on a certain task, and businessB offers to pay you 35 dollars an hour while you work for them 6 hours a day doing the same kind of work as businessA, you will have the freedom of choosing which business to work for.
Normally, it would make sense to choose to work for businessA since you would technically make more money in the long run, but the decision to work for businessA and not businessB should be the employee's, not someone else's. This is because there may also be reasons and factors as to why people would prefer to work for businessB even though businessA offers more money. Maybe the employee doesn't have the time to work for more than 3 hours a day and wants to do other things while still being able to work to earn a little money. Maybe businessB is physically closer to where the employee lives so the employee would have to spend less gas to drive to businessB. Maybe businessB offers other benefits to attract the employee, such as a free scholarship or something. Maybe businessB is just more friendlier than businessA. Maybe businessB is just more popular than businessA overall. There could be all kinds of different factors.
So if the employee chooses to work for businessB, will the person/people who decide that the employee is getting duped take all of these other external or hidden factors into account when making that decision, or will the person/people in charge of deciding if there is any duping going on take only money per hour into account, and nothing else that the business(es) offered to attract the employee?
If the employee chooses to work for businessB, and businessA still wants that employee, then businessA will have to compete for that employee by maybe offering an even higher wage or something, or maybe some better benefits, to attract the employee.
Then businessB will have to offer more to attract the employee, and businessA will have to offer more, and so on.
This is how competition works for businesses. Whoever can offer the most benefits, pay the highest wages, and/or attract the employee in the best way, wins that employee. In the case of the teenager who is satisfied working 6 dollars, the business that hired them probably had to compete with other businesses for that teenager, and the teenager ultimately chose to work for that business because they were most attracted to that business.
By trying to implement and enforce so-called anti-duping measures that are subjective and/or flawed, you hurt competition, which is what the economy needs.
In a free market, people should be allowed to make choices, even if it is, or at least seems like, the wrong choice, or if it seems like they're getting duped, when it comes to working for a certain wage. In a free market, people should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from the consequences of those mistakes in order to improve. people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is best for them. In a free market, people should be allowed to weight the upsides and downsides when choosing which business to work with, and how much they want to work for, with minimal government interference.
Because of this, it's going to be very hard, to come up with a good criteria to determine if someone is getting duped, and even harder to determine who should be in charge of deciding who is and who is not getting duped in such a complex competition of different business and employees, with all these different factors to consider. A lot of people, including myself, do not and will not trust the government to make the best decision on whether or not someone is getting duped, nor will they agree with the criteria that whoever is in charge establishes.
If you, as a business, believes, or knows, someone that is getting exploited or "duped" working for another business, you can always encourage them to leave that business and work for you instead, and offer more benefits or wages for that person, in order to attract them to your business. That is an example of competition, which leads to businesses improving to attract employees. It's better for businesses to compete for employees using what they offer to attract those employees, rather than an arbitrary minimum wage law that can hurt competition.
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? Maybe this teenager chose this specific 6-dollar job because they offered something like a scholarship, or because it's close to where they live, or because of some other external factor that made them decide that this was a good deal. There could be many reasons why this teenager chose this 6-dollar job. There could have been a business that offered more money, but this teenager did not look at only money. They looked at others things to consider, and so should you.
Wages and hours are not the only things people think about when looking for work. The economy is not that simple. Any business that can offer the best deal to an employee, and convince that employee that it's the best deal and not someone else, wins that employee. That's not duping. That's competition\.
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.
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.
Okay, then we have two choices: do nothing and let people get duped, or do something. I'm on the "do something" side of the equation.
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?
1 & 2 is: the government.
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?
Yes.
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.
Except that doesn't happen. Without restrictions, business don't offer the best deals to employees, 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.
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?
Why would a business do that? 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.
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.
You misunderstand, 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.
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.
I didn't say anything about anyone's feelings.
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.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.
To you this is a perfectly fine economic arrangement the government shouldn't be involved in except to enforce it if one party defaults?
-->
@drafterman
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?Yes
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.
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?
-->
@Athias
YesSo then explain how they are being deceived.
By being convinced for taking less payment than they could have received.
There are people who work for less. Are the terms of payment not made clear?
No, not always.
Is information on higher paying employment forcefully withheld?
Withheld? Surely. I don't know what "forcefully" means in this context.
If no one would willingly work for less, how is it that there are those working for less?
Clearly people are "willing" to work for less. I never suggested otherwise.
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.
I disagree.
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.
The differences I have described are observed, not dictated.
Because they were duped.You've yet to substantiate this conclusion.
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?
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.
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.
Select one you believe is sound. I'll then provide a counterargument.
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.
For one, whether or not the agreement is fair to each party involved.If the parties, once again, willfully agree, isn't fairness implicit?
No. People agree to unfair terms all the time. If they never did, there wouldn't be any reason to identify contracts as unconscionable and void them.