Minimum Wage should be zero, change my mind.

By being convinced for taking less payment than they could have received.

No, not always.

Withheld? Surely.

I don't know what "forcefully" means in this context.

Clearly people are "willing" to work for less. I never suggested otherwise.

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.

The differences I have described are observed, not dictated.

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 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.

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.

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.

Now we're getting somewhere.

By not being given.

I don't know what that even means.

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.

I accept it as a given that the biological and psychological differences between adults and children is a given.

Except I just did.

It means they are more capable in arriving at an outcome that benefits them more than the other perosn.

This happens, yes.

This happens as well.

Children generally don't have a capacity to act in their best interest.

That's one of their defining attributes.

How so?

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.

More accurately, a reductio ad absurdum is an extension from premises that [logically leads to a necessary absurd conclusion.]

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 someone be forced away form looking for information? This is a nonsensical question.

The traditional, common sense definition suffices.

Regardless, I was quoting you, so you define it.

I'm not presuming perfect information. In fact, I'm pointing out that the information is imperfect, hence the duping.

That's not what "circular reasoning" means.

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.

The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative.

Not correct. Children often have times difficulty in realizing and articulating the precise nature of their desires.

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.

I wasn't speaking in a legal capacity. I stand by my statement.

Only if a thing can only exclusively have objective or subjective components, rather than a combination of both. This is not established.

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

Your definition is not correct

I would ask

that you do not edit the content of my statements when quoting them.

Epistemological concerns are not relevant. We're talking about this scenario as omniscient third parties.

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.

"of or relating to the will or power of choosing"

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

You are not in a position to tell me what I'm presuming.

Yes it is since the only way to obtain that information is to receive it from the person that has it.

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.

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 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.

Yes I did.

That would be a subjective judgement.

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.

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.

Forgive me if I do not define my role as a parent by some obtuse stranger on the internet.

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.

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.

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.

Standard of living.

1 & 2 is: the government.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To you this is a perfectly fine economic arrangement the government shouldn't be involved in except to enforce it if one party defaults?