This is comedy gold.
Hey Bomb#20 - which is more accurate? Rhea's reference to the conference, or your initial reference to her post?
Well, since what I said was true and what she said was false, mine, obviously. And I see you're still writing "post" in the singular -- still making me out to have been responding to only one post -- which is what you needed to do in order to conjure up a case for a charge against me of inaccuracy.
It's pretty clear what he's trying to do though. Here's the giveaway:
Bomb#20 said:
So when you claim MW employers are mooching because the facts are such-and-such, why the devil should anyone take you seriously?
Being
totally unable to refute what's been said on this thread, a smokescreen of outrage is just what the doctor ordered.
That's a pretty spot-on description of what Rhea did in post #165, where she simply reiterated her false accusation against me without offering evidence, instead taking my words out of context for the purpose of misrepresenting the issue in dispute between us. But you have no grounds to impute that sort of approach to me. As far as I can see from our exchange, I have refuted every single thing you've said to me in support of the moocher hypothesis, up through post #98, which is how backlogged I am. I'm working my way through #153; but it's clear that you have more bandwidth to devote to this forum than I do -- there are many outside demands on my time -- so you will undoubtedly be able to continue posting wrong stuff faster than I will be able to explain why it's wrong, for as long as you care to keep it up. If you intend to use the sheer volume of not-yet-refuted material as an excuse to claim I'm totally unable to refute what's been said, no one will stop you, but that won't make it true.
I had intended to wait to post until I was caught up. But you're giving me attitude, so I suppose I'd better post what I've got so far and let the discussion go ahead and fragment if you decide not to wait for the rest before answering. Here's Part 1:
Just because it's a fact that somebody values something such and such an amount doesn't stop it from being a value judgment.
No, but it does stop Rhea's argument from resting on a value judgement. Her argument rests on the fact that society demands a certain standard of living. That this is a value judgement on society's part doesn't make it any less of a fact (not value judgement) that the demand is made.
You claim (or, perhaps, you claim Rhea claims) employers (by which you presumably mean specifically those paying MW) can not make a profit without actively contributing to starvation and maimed children.
I don't think I am.
It's what you wrote in post #51:
The point of all these false claims and invalid arguments, plainly, is to pretend a world where we are not surrounded by starving people and maimed children is something employers require, rather than simply something we've decided we want.
No, the point is that employers can not make a profit without actively contributing to starvation and maimed children.
If you're no longer claiming that, then we can close this subtopic.
Are you sure you've understood Rhea's arguement?
Of course it's possible that I haven't understood Rhea's argument. If you want to make another attempt to explain why there's some sense in it, go for it.
but it will still be a fact that does not imply the conclusion it was offered in support of.
If that's true, you should be able to demonstrate that the arguement doesn't follow. You've not attempted to do so.
On which planet? What the bejesus do you think pointing out that a change of values on the part of society has no power to magically cause MW employment to actively contribute to starvation and maimed children is, if you think it isn't an attempt to demonstrate that the argument doesn't follow?
...they're creating a negative externality. Do they do this via a physical mechanism, or via magic?
I argued that they were creating a negative externality by consuming labour. Businesses buy labour and use it. While they are using it, other people can't. So it's a limited resource that is no longer on the market. In return they pay money. If they pay a lot of money, then the situation creates a net positive externality. There must be a certain price below which consuming a limited resource creates a net negative externality.
I.e., by magic. These "other people" who can't use it that you refer to -- would they in point of fact actually use it, if the MW business didn't buy the labor? If they wouldn't have bought the labor anyway, then they clearly suffer no negative externality. But if they would buy it, how much would they pay for it?
Would they pay less than the MW business you claim creates a net negative externality? No, if the employee in question weren't employed by that business, the other people couldn't hire him for less than MW; that's what "minimum" means. The limited resource is
already off the market for less than MW; therefore the MW employment doesn't
cause it to be no longer on the market.
So would they pay the same or more? If the other people would pay that, then even though the employee has a MW job he can quit and go work for them. So his MW employment isn't stopping them from buying the labor. They can make him an offer and he can accept it, i.e.
it's still on the market. So you haven't exhibited a negative externality from the MW employment.
The intuition that there must be a certain price below which consuming a limited resource creates a net negative externality comes from experience with commodities like oil, which will still be there in the ground for future use if we decide not to sell cheap when that's all the market will bear. If we sell oil cheap enough it will be less than the opportunity cost, where the opportunity we're giving up is the opportunity to save the oil against the day when someone will value it more than anyone does at present. Those hypothetical future users of the oil will bear a cost from our short-sighted decision to sell cheap. But that intuition isn't correct for labor, because when labor goes unsold it's gone, the same as when it's consumed.
My math is based on the fact that the business is claiming all of the labour of an individual, but not meeting off all his costs.
No, they aren't claiming it. You appear to be using "claim" in some sense other than its normal meaning in English;
While it is being used by employer A, it is not available for use by employer B. In order for employer B to use it, employer A must stop using it.
I don't understand the source of the confusion.
You say that as though "stop using it" were
an act on the part of employer A, and she can prevent employer B from using the labor by simply neglecting to perform this act the rest of us are depending on her to do in order for the labor to be redeployed. But in order for employer B to use it, all that needs to happen is the employee must show up for work at B's premises instead of A's. Employer A isn't stopping employer B from using the labor;
the employee does that.
There is nothing arbitrary about the "Would output Q still happen if input P were not present?" start point.
Sure there is. You're assuming unemployment as a default state for someone actively participating in the labour market.
Well,
it is the default state, for everyone, actively participating or not. People aren't born with jobs.
Which means that as soon as you start considering any kind of displacement effect, whereby employment at one job reduces availability to be employed elsewhere, the argument falls apart.
Does it really? Let's try it out...
Cost of unemployed person to society = Z (not starving, desperate or creating other externalities)
Cost of person employed elsewhere to society = W (not starving, desperate or creating other externalities)
Cost of employee to society = X (not starving, desperate or creating other externalities)
Cost of employee to business = Y
Cost of employment to business = Y
Cost of employment to society = if he'd be employed elsewhere then X - W else X - Z.
When X < Z AND X < W, regardless of Y the business is still providing a positive externality to society, to the tune of (Z - X) or (W - X). So in order for the argument to fall apart if employment were the default state, W would have to be less than X. I.e., the employee would have to be less starving, less desperate and less creating negative externalities at the hypothetical employer B. Can you explain why he'd be less starving and desperate at employer B? Consider the possible cases. Would employer B pay him better than MW? If so, why is the employee choosing to work for employer A? Either employer A is somehow nonetheless doing a better job of relieving his desperation and keeping him from starving -- and that would be a positive externality from his MW employment -- or else he simply likes the job at employer A better. And if he's in a position to prioritize job satisfaction and enjoyment over pay, then he's not starving and desperate.
So much for the case of employer B paying better. That leaves the case of employer B not paying better. The employee is starving and desperate even though he has a MW job at employer A and even though he'd be employed by employer B if he didn't have his current job; but employer B is just another MW employer like employer A. So in this case the opportunity cost of MW employment is just some other MW employment. But according to your theory,
MW employment causes a negative externality. So by hiring the guy who'd be employed elsewhere, employer A is
eliminating the negative externality caused by employer B. That would be a positive externality on employer A's part, cancelling out the negative externality you argue he causes by employing the guy himself.
So no, in neither case does the argument that MW employment causes a positive externality break down when we consider the displacement effect. All you can ever get out of assuming employment is the default when considering displacement is a reduction in the magnitude of the positive externality. Moreover, the displacement effect cuts both ways. If the employee would in fact otherwise be employed by employer B, then employer A hiring him is likely to open up a job at employer B. That's either a job for an otherwise unemployed person, or else a job for a person who would be otherwise employed at employer C, who will now have an opening, and so forth, until the chain terminates with a job for an otherwise unemployed person. So the positive externality is likely to be the full (Z - X) anyway.
But potential employees are a cost to society, and employing them at MW usually causes that cost to go down.
Only if you value the labour consumed at zero. Hence 'treating employment as charity'. Employment gains the society money and loses society his labour.
How did you infer that? You're the one who defined people's cost to society like this: "Cost of employee to society = X (not starving, desperate or creating other externalities)". How on earth is X affected in the slightest by how much you or I value the labor consumed? Sure, you can always think up an accounting procedure that declares the guy's labor to have a "value" of ten pounds, or a hundred if you prefer; and you can always claim society has "lost" that many pounds as a result of the guy working for MW. But that's just numbers in the ledger of your imagination. It doesn't mean he'd have been ten pounds less starving and less desperate without the job, nor does it mean society would have actually received those ten-pounds-worth of his labor if only he didn't have the MW job. Your accounting procedure has no magical power to value into existence some person willing to pay ten pounds in return for an hour of the guy's labor.
But such an economy doesn't work, because there is no other income source other than employment to meet costs. All costs to society ultimately have to be met by someone, and taken simply, that someone is always an employer or business of some kind.
And? We aren't starving; the economy keeps growing;
All that means is that MW work is a sufficiently small slice of the economy that we can afford to subsidse it.
No, all that means is that your claim that such an economy doesn't work was incorrect, and therefore the argument you used that claim as a step in was an unsound argument. Whether MW work constitutes subsidized work is the point in dispute -- you are still assuming your conclusion as a premise.
To be continued...
