Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cato

On minimum wage

Recommended Posts

Please explain how you have the moral authority to place restrictions on a voluntarily mutual agreement between two people, and initiate force against them if they do not comply with these restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the question is. But fast food workers should not be asking for a higher minimum wage. Instead the wage of our service men/women should be raised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain how you have the moral authority to place restrictions on a voluntarily mutual agreement between two people

 

 

Because the rest of society has to live with the structures your voluntary mutual agreement creates, so we should have a say in the rules by which you operate.

 

 

and initiate force against them if they do not comply with these restrictions.

 

You should, moreover, explain what's so wrong with force. I understand that you're not a consequentialist, so my arguments that force creates a sum better state of affairs will fall on deaf ears, but I still haven't seen you explain your deontological opposition to force. 

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how you have the moral authority to place restrictions on a voluntarily mutual agreement between two people, and initiate force against them if they do not comply with these restrictions.

 

Ordinary people are not usually in a fair bargaining position with a company. 

 

If McDonalds wanted to pay people $5 an hour, they could probably find teenagers who would work for that amount. They could just not hire people who demanded $10 an hour.

 

With that said, I do support a minimum wage. It's not just a barrier to employment - it can support employment because if workers have more money, they will spend more money, which will result in jobs for other people. But if the minimum wage is too high (as I believe it is in Australia), it encourages companies to outsource jobs to 3rd world countries, replace people with machines, and downsize their workforce. So the net result is that it harms employment, especially for jobs which can be outsourced (such as IT). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how you have the moral authority to place restrictions on a voluntarily mutual agreement between two people, and initiate force against them if they do not comply with these restrictions.

 

In theory: you do not.

 

In real life: to make more people happy by providing security of their minimum wage, since it is one of the tasks of the gouvernement to take care of all its people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since it is one of the tasks of the gouvernement to take care of all its people.

Or maybe not. Maybe it is, but there are other conceptions of government in which is exists primarily or exclusively for reasons other than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually feel in some ways minimum wage is a hindrance.

 

1. It is not a LIVING wage, my older brother gets minimum wage but he can't sustain life without us. He couldn't afford everything.

 

2. When it rises, so do prices, it causes inflation.

 

However, can you trust companies to fairly wage people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you trust the government to fairly or competently discern proper wages?

Well if the government was truly doing it right, the minimum wage would be a living wage...so frankly not.

 

but, how much lower would the companies make it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that necessarily mean the government should force it?

It shouldn't be forced, but it should be considered. 

 

However, if it isn't forced, most companies probably won't consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum wage debate is complicated, and there is a lack of consensus by the experts on its effects. Intuitions, gut feelings, and cherry picked studies aren't liable to be useful here. 

 

Personally, I suggest we stick to a theoretical normative argument--if the minimum wage were a beneficial policy, would it be an ethical policy? Whether it's actually beneficial is too hard a question for us.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the question is. But fast food workers should not be asking for a higher minimum wage. Instead the wage of our service men/women should be raised

I am asking for a moral justification behind enforcing minimum wage laws.

Your opinions on appropriate wages for various occupations are not at all relevant.

 

Because the rest of society has to live with the structures your voluntary mutual agreement creates, so we should have a say in the rules by which you operate.

That seems a little wishy-washy to me. What structures? What is the limit of this 'say'? It seems like if I accept this, I can use it to justify interference in any transaction that doesn't involve me however I want.

 

 

You should, moreover, explain what's so wrong with force. I understand that you're not a consequentialist, so my arguments that force creates a sum better state of affairs will fall on deaf ears, but I still haven't seen you explain your deontological opposition to force. 

I just advocate natural law, as I understand it. Every human being has the natural right to life, liberty, and property. Force (violence) is only virtuous in use of protecting these natural rights. I admit that I sort of take these as "axiom". What kind of explanation are you looking for? Although, I don't like the idea of trying to find deontological arguments for what I already believe.

 

Ordinary people are not usually in a fair bargaining position with a company.

So I am justified in eventually killing someone because the bargaining position is not "fair"?

 

It shouldn't be forced, but it should be considered. 

 

However, if it isn't forced, most companies probably won't consider it.

If it's not forced, then you aren't actually talking about minimum wage, are you? Edited by Cato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just advocate natural law, as I understand it. Every human being has the natural right to life, liberty, and property. Force (violence) is only virtuous in use of protecting these natural rights.

But you haven't questioned whether the very structure of market equilibrium value for labor is (or permits) that exact force which acts against an individual's right to life, liberty, property, etc. 

 

It is myopic to act as if a person exists in a vacuum, who's rights are only self-limited. It is important to ask if the environment is inherently violent; there is plenty of evidence that unregulated markets (particularly labor markets) quickly become unjust of themselves (Objectivism notwithstanding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone deserves to be paid enough money to live off of. (in response to Cato)

...and?

But you haven't questioned whether the very structure of market equilibrium value for labor is (or permits) that exact force which acts against an individual's right to life, liberty, property, etc. 

 

It is myopic to act as if a person exists in a vacuum, who's rights are only self-limited. It is important to ask if the environment is inherently violent; there is plenty of evidence that unregulated markets (particularly labor markets) quickly become unjust of themselves (Objectivism notwithstanding).

I think the question in the OP is pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question in the OP is pretty simple.

Can coercion be considered a voluntary agreement? Certainly not.

So if an economic institution promotes coercion (such as in the imbalance of power between market-powers and the laborer) then your premise is faulty: the initial state is unjust, so regulation would seek to restore justice that the unbalanced structure has robbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can coercion be considered a voluntary agreement? Certainly not.

So if an economic institution promotes coercion (such as in the imbalance of power between market-powers and the laborer) then your premise is faulty: the initial state is unjust, so regulation would seek to restore justice that the unbalanced structure has robbed.

Ok, I understand you now. I don't really think an imbalance of power is coercion, though. How is an imbalance of power coercion?

And that's my opinion on the matter.

The opinion you expressed doesn't seem to be related to the question I asked, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I am justified in eventually killing someone because the bargaining position is not "fair"?

 

 

Who said anything about killing someone? You also didn't quote everything I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I understand you now. I don't really think an imbalance of power is coercion, though. How is an imbalance of power coercion?

The power imbalance itself isn't coercion, but that imbalance enables and is perpetuated by coercive economic structures. This is of course a Marxist critique where the laborers must sell themselves to the capitalist in order to not starve. So that the laborer is continually threatened to work in the interest of not himself, but the capitalist that has the coercive power.

Which is why I say that your framing of the question is faulty, because the "agreement" itself is contained within a forceful structure that is blind to justice.

 

I should probably also add that this means a minimum wage is like trying to put a band-aid on a severed artery....but it is one of the several regulations that prevent capitalism from rapidly imploding upon itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about killing someone? You also didn't quote everything I said.

The ultimate consequence for resisting sanctions by the state is death.

I didn't quote the rest because you just went on about the purpose and possible results of minimum wage. As Chris pointed out, I find that absolutely irrelevant regarding morality and it does fall on deaf ears. I find moral arguments based around consequences and intents absolutely absurd. They do nothing for me. I admit that that's "not your problem", but that's why I only quoted the part that I did.

Edited by Cato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power imbalance itself isn't coercion, but that imbalance enables and is perpetuated by coercive economic structures. This is of course a Marxist critique where the laborers must sell themselves to the capitalist in order to not starve. So that the laborer is continually threatened to work in the interest of not himself, but the capitalist that has the coercive power.

Which is why I say that your framing of the question is faulty, because the "agreement" itself is contained within a forceful structure that is blind to justice.

I should probably also add that this means a minimum wage is like trying to put a band-aid on a severed artery....but it is one of the several regulations that prevent capitalism from rapidly imploding upon itself.

Alright.

So there are problems with the structure in the first place.

I'm interested in hearing them. What is the moral problem with sole voluntary, mutual consent?

Edited by Cato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe not. Maybe it is, but there are other conceptions of government in which is exists primarily or exclusively for reasons other than this.

 

That may be indeed. But if we are talking about western governments, which i assume, then that is what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×