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

[Jayjay]

Societies and their norms also compete against one another. If society A treats humans like farms animals, and it gives them some advantage in fight for resources against society B that doesn't, eventually sociaty B is going to wither away. This is exactly what happened at the dawn of agriculture.

I think that the only reason why now we frown at treating people like cattle has more to do with automation having replaced the need to do so to survive, rather than it being any intrinsic value. And the same is true in smaller scale for questions of what's the right number of hours to work per week or how much should the minimum wage be or whether we should have walls to keep immigrants out and so on: countries/societies that find the right balance between exploiting people to maximize productivity, and avoiding social ills due to doing so, are going to end up on the top.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Society and the economy would be perfect, it weren't for all the people.

 

[RavenSky]

Found it!

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...

I found this sentence rather absurd, too.

No, no one is "required" to have employees but unless the proprietor wants to do 100% of the labor themselves, they will likely need employees or stay a very small company

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're just showing that you don't get it.

Nope, I am pretty sure I am showing that you don't get it. Welfare is what happens in a civilized society when someone is unable to find or perform work that benefits that society.

Business trades labor for money. Your side keeps trying to make it into a welfare system for the employees, never mind that that's the government's job, not businesses job. It's just that when you make business do it you hide the cost and think you're not spending the money.

If a business employs a worker, they should be paying that worker a wage that allows that worker to not utilize welfare programs for the duration of their employment. Otherwise, the business is as much of a receiver of the welfare as is the worker.

Just repeating that business should be in the welfare business doesn't make it so.

In practice what you do is end up with the guy being unemployed and needing more help from the government.

 

[SimpleDon]

Why do I bother? I answered this question and no one bothered to read it.

Labor is not just a cost of production. It's also the only source of demand. No demand, no economy. No growth in wages, no growth in the economy.

There is the Twitter version for the brain dead.

 

[RavenSky]

Nope, I am pretty sure I am showing that you don't get it. Welfare is what happens in a civilized society when someone is unable to find or perform work that benefits that society.

Business trades labor for money. Your side keeps trying to make it into a welfare system for the employees, never mind that that's the government's job, not businesses job. It's just that when you make business do it you hide the cost and think you're not spending the money.

If a business employs a worker, they should be paying that worker a wage that allows that worker to not utilize welfare programs for the duration of their employment. Otherwise, the business is as much of a receiver of the welfare as is the worker.

Just repeating that business should be in the welfare business doesn't make it so.

In practice what you do is end up with the guy being unemployed and needing more help from the government.

If anyone knows about repeating nonsense, it's you

No matter how many times you erroneously called it "welfare", it never will be

 

[RavenSky]

Why do I bother? I answered this question and no one bothered to read it.

I did! I love reading your posts

Labor is not just a cost of production. It's also the only source of demand. No demand, no economy. No growth in wages, no growth in the economy.

There is the Twitter version for the brain dead.

 

[Jayjay]

Why do I bother? I answered this question and no one bothered to read it.

Labor is not just a cost of production. It's also the only source of demand. No demand, no economy. No growth in wages, no growth in the economy.

There is the Twitter version for the brain dead.

That doesn't seem right. Let's say I buy a car that uses twice as much gas as yours. Or I buy new cars twice as often as you do. Obviously, with regards to manufacture and usage of cars, I'm creating twice as much demand than you are. Yet, I'd say that this isn't a virtue, it's a waste of resources.

Economic growth doesn't have an intrinsic value. A crack addict stimulates the economy by creating demand for crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean the society is any better off with it.

 

[bilby]

Why do I bother? I answered this question and no one bothered to read it.

Labor is not just a cost of production. It's also the only source of demand. No demand, no economy. No growth in wages, no growth in the economy.

There is the Twitter version for the brain dead.

That doesn't seem right. Let's say I buy a car that uses twice as much gas as yours. Or I buy new cars twice as often as you do. Obviously, with regards to manufacture and usage of cars, I'm creating twice as much demand than you are.

Nope. You are not creating that demand; your employer is creating it by paying you enough to indulge in that behaviour. If you can only afford half as much gas, or a new car half as often, then that's what you will end up buying. Desire is not demand, until it is coupled with the means to purchase.

Yet, I'd say that this isn't a virtue, it's a waste of resources.

That's a separate issue; If you earn the money to buy a gas guzzler, or to drive a new car every week, or to build a solid gold life-sized statue of yourself, then it's your choice what to spend that money on. Whether it is virtuous or a vice; whether it is a valuable use of resources or a waste, are value judgements that ultimately are up to you to make as a free agent. If you can afford to pay the piper, then you get to call the tune. If you have the money, you can spend it as you wish; and if you don't, you can't demand shit, no matter how important you think it is that you should get it.

Economic growth doesn't have an intrinsic value. A crack addict stimulates the economy by creating demand for crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean the society is any better off with it.

Demand and growth are related but not synonymous. A crack addict who obtains his crack money lawfully is no more harmful to the economy than anyone else. A mugger who uses his loot to fund a soup kitchen or to commission fine art is doing more harm than the crack addict.

For the vast majority of transactions, demand is limited by the income of the buyer. Less wages = lower demand. What particular goods or services are demanded is of little importance.

 

[KeepTalking]

Nope, I am pretty sure I am showing that you don't get it. Welfare is what happens in a civilized society when someone is unable to find or perform work that benefits that society.

Business trades labor for money. Your side keeps trying to make it into a welfare system for the employees, never mind that that's the government's job, not businesses job. It's just that when you make business do it you hide the cost and think you're not spending the money.

If a business employs a worker, they should be paying that worker a wage that allows that worker to not utilize welfare programs for the duration of their employment. Otherwise, the business is as much of a receiver of the welfare as is the worker.

Just repeating that business should be in the welfare business doesn't make it so.

I can't have repeated if I never said it in the first place. In fact, I have said just the opposite, and will repeat that, since you didn't get it the first time. Business paying workers a living wage while they work for the business is not welfare. It is the opposite of welfare, it is compensation for labor, and payment for services rendered. If the business is not paying a living wage, forcing their workers to go on welfare, then business is actually as much of a receiver of that welfare as the worker to whom they have failed to pay a living wage. If you want me to repeat it again, I will. It is the truth that you want to deny, and because of that, you feel you need to put words in my mouth.

In practice what you do is end up with the guy being unemployed and needing more help from the government.

And that is what welfare is for. It is for the case when society fails to provide enough work for everyone, or when members of that society are unable to work for other reasons. Providing welfare for workers who are working is also providing welfare to businesses that are, in many cases, reaping massive profits for their owners on the backs of workers who they are failing to properly compensate for their labor. That is the reality of the situation. If you care to address my actual arguments, feel free, but I have a feeling that you will just regurgitate your bullshit, and try to stuff your words in my mouth again. So, in that case, don't bother.

 

[Jayjay]

That doesn't seem right. Let's say I buy a car that uses twice as much gas as yours. Or I buy new cars twice as often as you do. Obviously, with regards to manufacture and usage of cars, I'm creating twice as much demand than you are.

Nope. You are not creating that demand; your employer is creating it by paying you enough to indulge in that behaviour.

There is a considerable rift of opinion in this forum whether "demand" is created by the laborer or the employer. Personally I think it's a silly debate and I'd rather bow out of it while I've still got some shred of sanity.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Edit: did not read things.

 

[Sarpedon]

I thought demand was created by the consumer: a set of people who may or may not include both the employer and the laborer.

 

[Horatio Parker]

An economy is said to be a demand or supply economy due to the elasticity of one or the other. If the consumer is limited in choices, the economy is said to be a supply economy. If, OTOH, suppliers are limited or constrained by a lack of consumers, then it's a demand economy, which is SimpleDons point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SimpleDon]

Why do I bother? I answered this question and no one bothered to read it.

Labor is not just a cost of production. It's also the only source of demand. No demand, no economy. No growth in wages, no growth in the economy.

There is the Twitter version for the brain dead.

That doesn't seem right. Let's say I buy a car that uses twice as much gas as yours. Or I buy new cars twice as often as you do. Obviously, with regards to manufacture and usage of cars, I'm creating twice as much demand than you are. Yet, I'd say that this isn't a virtue, it's a waste of resources.

Economic growth doesn't have an intrinsic value. A crack addict stimulates the economy by creating demand for crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean the society is any better off with it.

I can't pin down what you are disagreeing with me about.

Yes, the economy doesn't discriminate between economic demand that is deemed to be good for society, buying a fuel efficient car every ten years, and demand that is bad for society, buying gas guzzlers or buying crack. This is why you absolutely have to have what has been reduced to nearly a swear word now, regulations, to impose what economists call "externalities" into the transactions to account for what is good and what is bad for the society. Things like slavery, child labor, pollution, unsafe working conditions that maim and kill workers, unsafe products and drugs that are ineffective or are dangerous are all things that the free market devised that were determined to be bad for society.

There is no inherent morality in the capitalistic system. It has to be imposed from the outside. In fact the biggest problem with capitalism is that it saves its greatest rewards for those things that are bad for society.

 

[EricK]

Nope, I am pretty sure I am showing that you don't get it. Welfare is what happens in a civilized society when someone is unable to find or perform work that benefits that society.

Business trades labor for money. Your side keeps trying to make it into a welfare system for the employees, never mind that that's the government's job, not businesses job. It's just that when you make business do it you hide the cost and think you're not spending the money.

If a business employs a worker, they should be paying that worker a wage that allows that worker to not utilize welfare programs for the duration of their employment. Otherwise, the business is as much of a receiver of the welfare as is the worker.

Just repeating that business should be in the welfare business doesn't make it so.

I can't have repeated if I never said it in the first place. In fact, I have said just the opposite, and will repeat that, since you didn't get it the first time. Business paying workers a living wage while they work for the business is not welfare. It is the opposite of welfare, it is compensation for labor, and payment for services rendered. If the business is not paying a living wage, forcing their workers to go on welfare, then business is actually as much of a receiver of that welfare as the worker to whom they have failed to pay a living wage. If you want me to repeat it again, I will. It is the truth that you want to deny, and because of that, you feel you need to put words in my mouth.

In practice what you do is end up with the guy being unemployed and needing more help from the government.

And that is what welfare is for. It is for the case when society fails to provide enough work for everyone, or when members of that society are unable to work for other reasons. Providing welfare for workers who are working is also providing welfare to businesses that are, in many cases, reaping massive profits for their owners on the backs of workers who they are failing to properly compensate for their labor. That is the reality of the situation. If you care to address my actual arguments, feel free, but I have a feeling that you will just regurgitate your bullshit, and try to stuff your words in my mouth again. So, in that case, don't bother.

Do people deserve enough money to live on because of work they do, or because of their inherent worth as human beings? If you think the former, then you are just treating them (or at least their labour) as commodities - which is what the OP was complaining about. But if the latter, then there is no particular reason for those who purchase their labour (whether that's a single employer, or a number of individuals) to make sure the worker has to live on. Indeed if you believe the latter, then you ought to believe that it is up to rest of society to ensure that each individual has enough to live on - and so every bit of money they get from some other source is helping to relieve society of its obligations rather than the other way around.

 

[KeepTalking]

Nope, I am pretty sure I am showing that you don't get it. Welfare is what happens in a civilized society when someone is unable to find or perform work that benefits that society.

Business trades labor for money. Your side keeps trying to make it into a welfare system for the employees, never mind that that's the government's job, not businesses job. It's just that when you make business do it you hide the cost and think you're not spending the money.

If a business employs a worker, they should be paying that worker a wage that allows that worker to not utilize welfare programs for the duration of their employment. Otherwise, the business is as much of a receiver of the welfare as is the worker.

Just repeating that business should be in the welfare business doesn't make it so.

I can't have repeated if I never said it in the first place. In fact, I have said just the opposite, and will repeat that, since you didn't get it the first time. Business paying workers a living wage while they work for the business is not welfare. It is the opposite of welfare, it is compensation for labor, and payment for services rendered. If the business is not paying a living wage, forcing their workers to go on welfare, then business is actually as much of a receiver of that welfare as the worker to whom they have failed to pay a living wage. If you want me to repeat it again, I will. It is the truth that you want to deny, and because of that, you feel you need to put words in my mouth.

In practice what you do is end up with the guy being unemployed and needing more help from the government.

And that is what welfare is for. It is for the case when society fails to provide enough work for everyone, or when members of that society are unable to work for other reasons. Providing welfare for workers who are working is also providing welfare to businesses that are, in many cases, reaping massive profits for their owners on the backs of workers who they are failing to properly compensate for their labor. That is the reality of the situation. If you care to address my actual arguments, feel free, but I have a feeling that you will just regurgitate your bullshit, and try to stuff your words in my mouth again. So, in that case, don't bother.

Do people deserve enough money to live on because of work they do, or because of their inherent worth as human beings?

I will go with the latter.

If you think the former, then you are just treating them (or at least their labour) as commodities - which is what the OP was complaining about. But if the latter, then there is no particular reason for those who purchase their labour (whether that's a single employer, or a number of individuals) to make sure the worker has to live on.

The particular reason would be because in the US, where I live and work, all options are not in play. You have the option of working for your livelihood until such time as you can afford to retire, relying upon disability (one form of welfare) if you are unable to work, or living on welfare when you can't find work. The last two options are under constant attack by monied interests, which are in many cases also the businesses that are forcing their workers onto welfare in the first place.

Indeed if you believe the latter, then you ought to believe that it is up to rest of society to ensure that each individual has enough to live on - and so every bit of money they get from some other source is helping to relieve society of its obligations rather than the other way around.

I actually do believe that should be the goal, and would love to see UBI enacted in the US. Realistically, I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but I think a living wage backed up by a robust social safety net (i.e. welfare) is attainable in the interim, and in the foreseeable future, here in the US.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Human beings, however, have no market value. We cannot be bought and sold, we cannot be liquidated for cash commoditized as assets.

Some would disagree.

The Libertarian Case for Slavery

I'm sure they would.

And when the Libertarians manage to ever win an election in America, I'll be willing to listen to their bullshit.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh they used to, back when there was slavery.

If you read the rhetoric of the Pro-Slavery speakers back then, you will find all sorts of the same stuff you hear from libertarians today: Government can't tell one what to do with one's own property, government can't levy taxes, etc etc. Libertarians are the ideological successors of the slavers, and it would be silly to dismiss them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do people deserve enough money to live on because of work they do, or because of their inherent worth as human beings? If you think the former, then you are just treating them (or at least their labour) as commodities - which is what the OP was complaining about. But if the latter, then there is no particular reason for those who purchase their labour (whether that's a single employer, or a number of individuals) to make sure the worker has to live on. Indeed if you believe the latter, then you ought to believe that it is up to rest of society to ensure that each individual has enough to live on - and so every bit of money they get from some other source is helping to relieve society of its obligations rather than the other way around.

As I've said--welfare is the job of society, not business.