• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Probably one of the scariest sentences I've read by a free marketeer

 
 
 
ksen

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
At the end of the day, labor is a good, no different than a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk.
Click to expand...

They really believe there is nothing that might make labor different than a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk and their policy prescriptions show it.

:shakeshead:
 
Last edited:
ksen said:
At the end of the day, labor is a good, no different than a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk.
Click to expand...

The really believe there is nothing that might make labor different than a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk and there policy prescriptions show it.

:shakeshead:
Click to expand...

What's different?
 
I'll give you a few minutes to ponder what may make human labor different than a gallon of milk.
 
ksen said:
I'll give you a few minutes to ponder what may make human labor different than a gallon of milk.
Click to expand...

You started a thread with the premise there is some difference but you can't say what it is?
 
You're going on record saying there is no difference?
 
I usually find myself agreeing with you on lots of things ksen, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to do so here without knowing more about the *context* in which the quote was said; because right now I'm not seeing anything particularly scary about what was said. Yes, technically labor is a service, not a good... but beyond that I'm not seeing a priori how paying for a gallon of milk is fundamentally different from paying for an hour of someone's labor, or how saying this is supposed to be scary in and of itself? That's where context would come in.
 
I'll go ahead and wait for you to let me know if you agree with the quote in the OP or not. If you do agree I'll happily tell you what I think. If you don't agree then I see no reason to lay out my thoughts on the matter for you since we would have already agreed that they are different.

Although it may be fun, if you agree there is a difference, to see if we agree on what makes them different.

Either way I'd like to know if you agree with the quote in the OP or not before I answer.

- - - Updated - - -

dystopian said:
I usually find myself agreeing with you on lots of things ksen, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to do so here without knowing more about the *context* in which the quote was said; because right now I'm not seeing anything particularly scary about what was said. Yes, technically labor is a service, not a good... but beyond that I'm not seeing a priori how paying for a gallon of milk is fundamentally different from paying for an hour of someone's labor, or how saying this is supposed to be scary in and of itself? That's where context would come in.
Click to expand...

It was in the comments section to a Washington Post(?) story I read. I'll see if I can find it again and link you.

- - - Updated - - -

eta: lol, guess what's the top hit on google for the sentence quoted in the OP? :smug:
 
Found it!

Here's the entire comment:

yellowjkt, even assuming that your analysis is true, many companies have it where salaried status typically comes with additional benefits that hourly does not have - such as paid time off (or increased length of paid time off), 401(k), higher bonuses, etc. Those additional benefits have to be factored into your analysis, otherwise its an apples to oranges comparison.

There are good arguments being made on both sides here, and if I may just add to the discourse. At the end of the day, labor is a good, no different than a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. I wonder how everyone would feel if the government came out with a rule saying, you know what, a gallon of milk is $15 minimum, and a loaf of bread has to be at least $8 otherwise you cannot buy it. That's essentially what this decision (and the fight for $15/hr currently undertaken by the labor unions) is saying, only with the good of human capital.

Now you might think that comparing human labor to tangible goods is silly, but at the end of the day nobody is required to have employees (scary if that ever changes) so if you put onerous mandates on employment, you will get less employment, just like putting onerous mandates on milk and bread would result in less milk and bread purchased.

In this case, employers who are faced with increased salary thresholds, increases to minimum wage, and mandated employer paid insurance, are going to start looking for other avenues (less expansion, automated workers, different industries less labor intensive). It already happened in the auto industry decades ago. The last remaining bastion is the restaurant industry - the industry most highly impacted by this. The restaurant industry is under attack because they cannot pick up and move overseas like auto did. But watch in the coming years how many restaurants start drying up or turning to robots to make our food.
Click to expand...
 
The main difference seems to be that when you buy the gallon of milk you are indirectly paying for other peoples' labour; but when you employ someone you are directly paying for their labour.
 
That and the milk won't starve to death or die of exposure if you don't pay it enough.
 
ksen said:
That and the milk won't starve to death or die of exposure if you don't pay it enough.
Click to expand...
But presumably the people whose labour you are indirectly buying will starve to death if you (and others) don't pay enough for it.
 
A consumer of milk has no control over what the producer of milk pays his employees.

A consumer of labor does have that control.
 
If your worker sucks, they may actually be a continual drain if they don't produce equal to or more than they are worth, whereas milk and bread are short term assets that can be sold and have a fixed loss associated with them. Once the milk and bread spoil they will have zero value but not drain you further.

Every resturant that could be automated already serves food that's not really worth eating anyway, sugar coated fat made from left over bits after the high end stuff is taken out of the process. Basically semi-fresh heat lamp warmed versions of the vending machine sandwiches at the local truck stop. But minimum wage isn't the reason they would dry up. Most small businesses go under because people don't have any idea what a business plan is, i.e. management sucks. Same for big business, but they're shielded by "corporatehood" and can loot the place before bankruptcy. It's like saying Walmart will go under by raising minimum wages. Maybe to like $50/hr.

This post or the comment section of a Washington Post article are not the best places to get economic information.
 
ImGod said:
This post or the comment section of a Washington Post article are not the best places to get economic information.
Click to expand...

No, but they're pretty good places to get the attitude of conservatives towards other living human beings.
 
ksen said:
A consumer of milk has no control over what the producer of milk pays his employees.

A consumer of labor does have that control.
Click to expand...

I don't think buying the cheapest milk you can find and not caring if the milk producers are getting enough to live on is really all that different to hiring the cheapest labour you can find and not caring if they are getting enough to live on.
 
ksen said:
That and the milk won't starve to death or die of exposure if you don't pay it enough.
Click to expand...

So if I make my living selling milk and some guy buys all of the milk I sell then milk would be the same as labor?

Or, if I make my living cutting lawns and multiple different people pay me to cut their lawns then my labor is the same as milk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom