Minimum Wage Laws

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='31 October 2009 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1256961314' post='1994223']
we have the right to have the means necessary to fulfill our obligations. your leaps of logic lept over a couple key parts of that... first you somehow interpreted that to mean that we must be legally forced to fulfill our moral obligations. not at all what I said; in the context of the rights I'm talking about, that would mean legally forcing everyone to work. I do not advocate that, if people don't work to fulfill their obligations they're not breaking legal obligations but moral ones. second you lept over "have the means necessary"; we have the right to the means necessary to fulfill our moral obligations. the state must protect our rights and ensure that we are easily able to have the means necessary to fulfill our moral obligations. the actual fulfilling of the moral obligations is left to us, obviously.[/quote]

If I is legally obligated to ensure that my neighbor is able to fulfill his moral obligations, then his moral obligations are effectually legal obligations to me. Why the distinction? Why am I legally obligated to ensure that he can give to charity, but he is [i]not[/i] legally obligated to give to it? It's absurd.

Can you direct me to where Thomas Aquinas said this? I'm genuinely curious.

[quote]poor people don't have the moral obligation to help poor people...those who are able to do so are the ones with that duty...we have the right to the have the means necessary to fulfill our duties"[/quote]

I agree with that poor people don't have that obligation, because I think moral obligations are dependent on one's ability to fulfill them. But [i]you[/i] must disagree with this. Why? Because you said that I am legally obligated to ensure that my neighbor is able to fulfill his moral obligations. This assumes that he still has that moral obligation even if he does not have the ability to fulfill it. In other words, if, by definition, everyone who has the duty already possesses the means (ability) to fulfill, there is no circumstance in which anyone with a duty would need someone else to provide them with the means to fulfill it.

Also, am I legally obligated (through the state, I suppose) to ensure that everyone has a minimum standard of living? If so, again, what becomes of charity as a voluntary act of mercy? And why are employers legally obligated to pay their employees are certain, but not legally obligated to hire them in the first place? Shouldn't the first person who is financially able to do so be required to hire a beggar he meets on the street, at a "living wage," or otherwise provide him with enough resources to be able to fulfill moral obligations like marrying a woman, giving to charity, taking care of his body, etc? And if he doesn't, should not the beggar be able to sue for damages, for violation of his right to be provided with means to fulfill these moral obligations?

[quote]"employers are people too"... well, some of them are. some of them are distant corporations[/quote]

Corporations are, in fact, groups of people like all other institutions. The shareholders are the owners. The Board of Directors represents the shareholders. Everyone from CEO down is an employee. It's true that shareholders are currently granted limited liability privileges from the state. However, my opinion is that this could be imitated through contracts so you could have a limited liability corporate business model in a voluntary society. But if not, fine; let's have a voluntary society and we'll see.

[quote]when it comes to local small employers, I do see them as being much more willing to make sure their employees get a decent wage.[/quote]

Actually, large firms pay their employees higher wages. Remember, firms compete for labor and large ones are more able to offer employees higher wages than smaller ones.

[quote]all the glorification of capitalism and the industrial revolution is sickening to me[/quote]

[img]http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ayn-rand-stamp-picture.jpg[/img]

[indent][size="4"][font="Comic Sans MS"][indent]BOO![/indent][/font][/size][/indent]

[quote]it was TECHNOLOGY, and not a system of economics, which raised the standard of living; and that technology could perfectly well have been developed in a different economic system.[/quote]

Innovation flourishes best in a free market situation and is stifled by a managed economy. But it's not just innovation; the ever-increasing division of labor and the ever-increasing cumulative store of capital are perhaps even more important. All of them flourish best in a free economy.

[quote]Thomas Woods, living thorn in the side of distributists everywhere, showed how voluntarily communistic Catholic monks in England were developing precursors to assembly lines before Henry VIII stomped them out.[/quote]

The key word is "voluntarily." The free market encompasses all forms of [i]voluntary[/i] economic interaction.

[quote]the Catholic prohibitions against usury and generally the Catholic economic principals that most modern post-Enlightenment Capitalists (imbued with the Protestant Work Ethic and a false understanding of the purpose of man in this life) think was holding the world back was actually the thing which made the middle ages bearable and good... made them pretty much the best they could be for that level of technological advancement.[/quote]

How do you know that this? How do you know that life in the Middle Ages wouldn't have been more prosperous than it was without usury prohibitions?

[quote]do I oppose voluntary communists? no, because I don't oppose monasteries. but I also wouldn't oppose voluntary lay communists either, necessarily.[/quote]

Okay, so do you oppose voluntary capitalists who want to get together to live according laissez-faire ideals?

Edited October 31, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Anomaly]

Al,
You don't provide an answer or response to most of the questions that are being brought up to you. Despite the many ways it was phrased, what about the economic reality of a business being forced to pay more to a man because he has more kids and gets married?

This thread started out asking the question about Catholic perspective on minimum wage laws and grew to support that it does via the superior (your opinion) "Catholic idea of distributism" and the inherent failure and non-Catholicism (your opinion) of free markets. You are being challenged on particulars.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='31 October 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1256965157' post='1994276']
however, in a system that truly enforced just practices, a good decent business with a good idea is going to be able to succeed and afford to act justly in terms of wages, employee ownership, et cetera... they'd be able to keep their prices justly high enough for just wages for their employees in a way that does indeed protect the right to ownership of everyone involved. assuming it's a good business which is able to be successful in fulfilling a need in society.
[/quote]

Just practices? What do you mean? Where does justice originate in an economy? The employer? The employee? The customer? It comes about through individuals making voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchanges of goods and services. Making agreements, and sticking to them: rendering to each other his due. If I work for you for an agreed-upon price, I am due the price I agreed to be paid. If I do not agree to work for a particular wage, I am not required to. If an employer does not agree to pay a particular wage, he does not have to. Neither of these scenarios is unjust. The market has a way of achieving equilibrium, and punishing the crooked. Corporatism, (which you obviously conflate with the free market) is a system in which equilibrium cannot easily be achieved, because certain parties receive special favors from the State, either through enormous direct contracts which can only be fulfilled by giant producers (who only survive because they eat from the State trough), or through protectionist policies such as tariffs.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 1, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

Anomaly, the business must offer more to the man if it is able to do so. If it is unable to do, it obviously cannot. But again, this does not mean that all men who have another child get a raise; it means that their minimum that they ought to be able to earn increases... if they're already making over their minimum, they don't need an increase. if a man with children is unable to find work which can support his children, if the place he works is unable to afford to offer him enough, then the economic system he lives in is flawed. so long as there's enough food in the country to feed every human being in the country, there ought to be enough work available to everyone who is responsible for those human beings. if that work is unavailable, then someone somewhere is being unjust; obviously, if the man's employer is unable to afford to give the man that much work, then it's not the employer who is being unjust, it's someone else who is hoarding an unjust proportion of the nation's goods through "ownership" which has no physical power but only exists on paper.

Stern, I do not hold that any and all types of equilibrium are just. the reason being that those who possess the means of working hold most of the bargaining chips in negotiating a wage. while it is indeed true that there is a voluntary agreement, sometimes the will of the worker is coerced by his own need and the scarcity of good paying jobs. the fact is, for some people it's the question of "agree to this low wage, or agree to starvation". and the common practice is to push wages down so that prices can be pushed down, because it is certainly easy to push wages down when good paying jobs are scarce.

now, it is true that if corporatism were toppled, this monopoly over these means of working falsely created by state favors to large businesses would be much less pronounced. but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen; so long as workers do not have the right to own that upon which they work, the non-workers who own it have a level of power over them entering into this 'voluntary agreement'

the economically correct price and the just price are indeed one and the same, but it must be considered what the just wage is. justice does indeed include itself in the economy, and anyone who holds that it does not has no Catholic sense at all in economic matters. the point is that people's work has an inherent value, and that they can indeed under-sell themselves in these "voluntary agreements" because sometimes they have to under-sell themselves that way because the employer is determined to offer low prices. low prices are unjust when they fail to achieve equilibrium with what workers deserve to be paid for their work... and I still hold workers deserve to be paid a living wage. an unjust equilibrium can be achieved when prices are low and wages are low; but I think a just equilibrium is possible by keeping prices high enough so that wages can be high enough.

now, I am no economist, but Heinrich Pesch is, and all the technicals of these ideas are contained in his writings (which I haven't read in full but I intend to, it will likely make me better at defending these principals).

as regards Aquinas, I have linked to the explanation be Fr. McNabb a few times: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/fr-mcnabb-speaks-on-rights-and-property.html . I must confess that I have only seen many many Thomists state this as an accepted fact, not where Aquinas himself says it. However, I've never seen it disputed, and I will inquire more as to where exactly the sources are. It certainly is something which makes perfect sense when reading anything Aquinas says on any related idea, but again, I'm still looking for his direct discussion of it as a principal. It is indeed an accepted principal in moral theology, that one has the right to the means necessary to fulfill one's duties; a debated principal related to it is this: "when the infringement of an obligation is necessarily involved in the exercise of a proportionate right, the obligation ceases"... that is a principal I tend to agree with because it applies double effect to this concept, and is what I applied above when I simply stated that the business only has to offer more to the worker IF the business is able to do so (ie without infringing upon the rights of the business owner, his means necessary to fulfill his obligation)

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1257106872' post='1994866']
Anomaly, the business must offer more to the man if it is able to do so. If it is unable to do, it obviously cannot. But again, this does not mean that all men who have another child get a raise; it means that their minimum that they ought to be able to earn increases... if they're already making over their minimum, they don't need an increase. if a man with children is unable to find work which can support his children, if the place he works is unable to afford to offer him enough, then the economic system he lives in is flawed. so long as there's enough food in the country to feed every human being in the country, there ought to be enough work available to everyone who is responsible for those human beings. if that work is unavailable, then someone somewhere is being unjust; obviously, if the man's employer is unable to afford to give the man that much work, then it's not the employer who is being unjust, it's someone else who is hoarding an unjust proportion of the nation's goods through "ownership" which has no physical power but only exists on paper.
[/quote]How does a central governing authority determine if a business can afford more adn where does the limit of the wealth due to the businesses owner who worked hard, risked much, to be rewarded to send his kids to the better then minimally adequate schools?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1257106872' post='1994866']
Anomaly, the business must offer more to the man if it is able to do so. If it is unable to do, it obviously cannot. But again, this does not mean that all men who have another child get a raise; it means that their minimum that they ought to be able to earn increases... if they're already making over their minimum, they don't need an increase. if a man with children is unable to find work which can support his children, if the place he works is unable to afford to offer him enough, then the economic system he lives in is flawed. so long as there's enough food in the country to feed every human being in the country, there ought to be enough work available to everyone who is responsible for those human beings. if that work is unavailable, then someone somewhere is being unjust; obviously, if the man's employer is unable to afford to give the man that much work, then it's not the employer who is being unjust, it's someone else who is hoarding an unjust proportion of the nation's goods through "ownership" which has no physical power but only exists on paper.[/quote]

The problem you mention is caused by men not having their personal priorities in order. If people demand cheap houses and cars so they can respectively raise and transport large families, the demand will be met, and the prices and job situation in the economy will reflect that demand. As it is, the order of the day are McMansions, BMW's and Mercedes. It comes down to individual people deciding what they value in life. That is something you cannot change with your statutes enforced by violence.

The State "owns" over half of the land West of the Mississippi. Do State actors really have physical power or a just claim on deciding what should be done with that much land? Because that land is sitting there fallow. Unproductive. Because of men with guns. Go ahead and start with those people who are "hoarding" a huge proportion of resources that could be used to actually benefit people.

[quote]Stern, I do not hold that any and all types of equilibrium are just. the reason being that those who possess the means of working hold most of the bargaining chips in negotiating a wage. while it is indeed true that there is a voluntary agreement, sometimes the will of the worker is coerced by his own need and the scarcity of good paying jobs. the fact is, for some people it's the question of "agree to this low wage, or agree to starvation". and the common practice is to push wages down so that prices can be pushed down, because it is certainly easy to push wages down when good paying jobs are scarce. . . .[/quote]

Wages are going to fall and rise due to innovative technology supplanting old technology and by labor migrations. Only in a static economy with no innovation is a constant wage possible. Stifling innovation is what guilds did. They artificially controlled the market, and they kept everyone except for a select few very poor.

The whaler's guild/cartel doubtless protested the introduction of petroleum-based machine oils. The gaslamp guild/cartel detested the invention of the light bulb. But people valued those changes. They wanted them. Their lives improved because of them. "They could keep factories open 24/7 because of the light bulb," you may say. Did a change in the environment cause people to do that? Or does not suffering rather result from men's lack of virtue? Virtue that you may not morally try to impart through coercion of the will or spirit.

[quote]the economically correct price and the just price are indeed one and the same, but it must be considered what the just wage is. justice does indeed include itself in the economy, and anyone who holds that it does not has no Catholic sense at all in economic matters. the point is that people's work has an inherent value, and that they can indeed under-sell themselves in these "voluntary agreements" because sometimes they have to under-sell themselves that way because the employer is determined to offer low prices. low prices are unjust when they fail to achieve equilibrium with what workers deserve to be paid for their work... and I still hold workers deserve to be paid a living wage. an unjust equilibrium can be achieved when prices are low and wages are low; but I think a just equilibrium is possible by keeping prices high enough so that wages can be high enough.
[/quote]

A brief review of economic law, a law legislated by human nature as created by God: you cannot create a statute to raise wages without creating a shortage of jobs. Similarly, you cannot artificially raise prices without destroying some demand for that product and/or creating a black market. Prices are not arbitrary, and they are not tools to be manipulated. They are the result of what people value, and again, what people value cannot be directed at gunpoint.

The same goes for the price of labor. If you think that as a central planner, you can capably decide how much everyone's labor is worth, you are in for a foul surprise.

You and I and King's Rook's Pawn all want the same thing, Aloysius. We all want a just society. We all want our basic needs met. We all want a decent place to live. However, what you are saying is that this just society can come about through men in power making rules, as opposed to instilling a love of particular things in the heart of the individual. You want to change the environment. So do I. You cannot morally or efficaciously change a social environment through any means except convincing the hearts of the individuals who make up the economic environment.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 2, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Anomaly]

Al,
The whole foundation of your argument supposes that an emplyoyer can dictate the lowest wage, period. That is absolutely not the case and has no basis in reality. I know this for a fact.

I manage a construction company in Florida, based in the farm area outside of Tampa. 80% of our work is directly for Governments, 25% of that for the Federal Government. Our area has about a 15% unemployment rate. I can hire unexperienced people and teach them a trade (if they want to learn). I am in competion with other contractors just like me. I personally can hire, fire, determine pay, negotiate deals, manage labor, and personally make a cut of the net profits. I do not pay anyone minimum wage, not even an 18 year old kid to start. Why do you think that is? Am I, and my fellow contractors, just that stupid?

[Aloysius]

I don't know how I got labeled as a central government planner, but I am no such thing, nor do I support central government planning. I have proposed some very limited roles of a central government in the other thread, and suddenly everything I say you think of as a proposition to be enforced by a central government. the only thing I wanted a central government to enforce was the definition of property I was advocating in that thread.

I do think that if a man is not receiving enough to sustain his moral obligations, he could take the case to a court who would determine what justice demands in that employment. the business owner may not justly take so much of the profit that he can't give the workers what is due to them... it's simple really, the measure of how much extra wealth he generates over and above meeting his basic moral obligations is how much money he makes over and above what he justly ought to pay to his employees.

I'm not talking about artificially raising any prices. if a product deserves to be sold, it will have a price/value that can sustain a just wage for the workers who produce it. if it's not in enough demand to be sold at a price that will give the workers who produce it a just wage, then there's simply no just and moral way to sell it. there is enough labor to go around on things which have actual demand that we needn't clutter the economy with unnecessary trinkets that don't have enough demand to actually pay what it ought to cost to produce them.

it's very simple really... if it's worth the price of human labor, then the people buying it must pay the price of human labor. human labor has value and purpose, and if it's not fulfilling its purpose then its value is not being recognize.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='01 November 2009 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1257121844' post='1994958']
Al,
The whole foundation of your argument supposes that an emplyoyer can dictate the lowest wage, period. That is absolutely not the case and has no basis in reality. I know this for a fact.

I manage a construction company in Florida, based in the farm area outside of Tampa. 80% of our work is directly for Governments, 25% of that for the Federal Government. Our area has about a 15% unemployment rate. I can hire unexperienced people and teach them a trade (if they want to learn). I am in competion with other contractors just like me. I personally can hire, fire, determine pay, negotiate deals, manage labor, and personally make a cut of the net profits. I do not pay anyone minimum wage, not even an 18 year old kid to start. Why do you think that is? Am I, and my fellow contractors, just that stupid?
[/quote]
are you the only employer in the world? maybe, just maybe, I'm not condemning you and you shouldn't take my arguments so personally. I am arguing for just wages and just prices; if you do indeed pay your employees just wages and just prices, then why is it a big deal? I think WalMart provides unjustly low prices and pays their employees unjustly low (and pushes too low the price for the people who distribute through them) to make that possible; I think there are plenty of employers that do the same.

The 'free market' doesn't always provide just wages. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1257123006' post='1994967']
I don't know how I got labeled as a central government planner, but I am no such thing, nor do I support central government planning. I have proposed some very limited roles of a central government in the other thread, and suddenly everything I say you think of as a proposition to be enforced by a central government. the only thing I wanted a central government to enforce was the definition of property I was advocating in that thread.[/quote]

A central planner is anyone whose own ideas are the center of effecting an economic policy which is then imposed on a population.

[quote]I'm not talking about artificially raising any prices.[/quote]

You said, "I think a just equilibrium is possible by keeping prices high enough so that wages can be high enough." How do you intend to keep those prices high, other than by convincing people about what they should value?

[quote] if a product deserves to be sold, it will have a price/value that can sustain a just wage for the workers who produce it. if it's not in enough demand to be sold at a price that will give the workers who produce it a just wage, then there's simply no just and moral way to sell it. there is enough labor to go around on things which have actual demand that we needn't clutter the economy with unnecessary trinkets that don't have enough demand to actually pay what it ought to cost to produce them.[/quote]

If there is no just or moral way to sell it, there is no free market economic way to sell it.

[quote]it's very simple really... if it's worth the price of human labor, then the people buying it must pay the price of human labor. human labor has value and purpose, and if it's not fulfilling its purpose then its value is not being recognize.
[/quote]

How about the labor of a doctor? His labor, saving lives, is priceless. Now, is it unjust that he should make more money than he actually needs to fulfill his moral obligations, more so than say, the garbage man?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 2, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

Anomaly used the term "central governing authority".

how do I keep prices higher? by making sure people get what they justly deserve through their labor. this doesn't try to convince people what they should value (except to demand that they value human labor on the basis of human dignity); it reveals what they actually value though. if it's not economically viable to pay people just wages to create some useless little piece of plastic 'toy' because people would only buy that little piece of plastic at a price too low to pay the workers fair prices, then you simply cannot make that little piece of plastic because you can't afford to. if the demand is too low to fund living wages, then it doesn't make sense to produce the thing at all.

anyone with highly specialized skills certainly deserves much higher than that which fulfills their minimum obligations... doctors, lawyers, et cetera. I'm saying that the unspecialized basic laborer deserves AT LEAST what fulfills his minimum obligation; a meritocracy begins there and goes up. It was not me that said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", that was ascribed to me by others still caught up in the idea that there's only Capitalism or Socialism and are somehow fighting an invisible socialist on these threads. Need is a FACTOR in MINIMUMS for wages.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1257123376' post='1994970']
are you the only employer in the world? maybe, just maybe, I'm not condemning you and you shouldn't take my arguments so personally. I am arguing for just wages and just prices; if you do indeed pay your employees just wages and just prices, then why is it a big deal? I think WalMart provides unjustly low prices and pays their employees unjustly low (and pushes too low the price for the people who distribute through them) to make that possible; I think there are plenty of employers that do the same.

The 'free market' doesn't always provide just wages. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
[/quote]I'm not taking it personally, not even close. Just trying to explain reality to you. I'm not the oddity because of my personal mores. I operate in a competitive market, as do my fellow contractors. You sidestepped the question. Why do you think we pay more than minimum wage, for unskilled workers, then what Wal-Mart pays?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1257125814' post='1994989']
Anomaly used the term "central governing authority".

how do I keep prices higher? by making sure people get what they justly deserve through their labor.[/quote]

You're using circular logic. You said, "I think a just equilibrium is possible by keeping prices high enough so that wages can be high enough."

[quote]this doesn't try to convince people what they should value (except to demand that they value human labor on the basis of human dignity); it reveals what they actually value though. if it's not economically viable to pay people just wages to create some useless little piece of plastic 'toy' because people would only buy that little piece of plastic at a price too low to pay the workers fair prices, then you simply cannot make that little piece of plastic because you can't afford to. if the demand is too low to fund living wages, then it doesn't make sense to produce the thing at all.[/quote]

Exactly. Economic law dictates that the cost of labor cannot exceed the profit, otherwise your business will collapse.

Those toys are being made in places like China, where people are moving to the cities from the country, where they were literally starving, in part because putting in an honest day's work in the soil was not as effective at keeping them fed as working in the city was. The cost of living is low in China, while their standard of living is increasing, despite the Communists in power. You should thank Wal-Mart for helping bring the Chinese out of poverty.

[quote]anyone with highly specialized skills certainly deserves much higher than that which fulfills their minimum obligations... doctors, lawyers, et cetera. I'm saying that the unspecialized basic laborer deserves AT LEAST what fulfills his minimum obligation; a meritocracy begins there and goes up. It was not me that said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", that was ascribed to me by others still caught up in the idea that there's only Capitalism or Socialism and are somehow fighting an invisible socialist on these threads. Need is a FACTOR in MINIMUMS for wages.
[/quote]

No, there is not only capitalism or socialism. There is only force or voluntary interaction.

Sometimes, even a free market does not allow one job to support a family. Sometimes people have to work 60, 70 hours to support a family. Is that because the employers are being unjust? Not at all necessarily. Consider a farmer: he can easily put in 70 hours, and his labor is dependent upon many variables; of weather, animal and plant diseases, suppliers getting him what he needs when he needs it, and unforeseen equipment failures. Similar variables are present in the free market. It is not unjust when the market is unable to provide a worker with one 40-hour job that can buy someone a house.

I, too, am in favor of paying an employee what his labor is worth. Injustice is not good, I agree. I think it is an injustice to assume that the majority of employers try to inflict injustice on their employees due to greed.

The free market, comprised though it is by sinful man, is more capable of providing the best wages for the most number of people than any interventionist scheme. States cause poverty, not the free market.

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

the logic is 'circular' because each is dependent upon the other. if the wages must be just, the employer must have high enough prices to afford those wages. just wage and just price are intricately connected. when I say that the prices ought not to be unjustly low, I'm talking about when businesses, such as WalMart, drive prices low by not paying just wages.

as to China's situation, urbanization is never a good thing because it often spells the end of community and family. there are more things at stake than material possessions. there is more than enough agricultural resources to go around, it is the communist schemes which prevent this; and the Capitalist schemes as well... because those are two sides of one coin in which the ownership of these things is centralized, either in big states or big businesses, and it suddenly becomes inefficient to do what men have been doing to attain their own sustenance since the agricultural revolution. again I say: if there's enough food in a country for everyone to eat, then there ought to be enough labor related to the production of that food for everyone to earn their share of it. in our topsy-turvey world it would seem that people for some reason are unable to grow enough of their own food, but suddenly when they start making tiny plastic pieces for some foreign company somewhere, they have enough 'wealth' to get that food. ask yourself: does that really make sense? if we wiped the slate clean as to all the structures we've built up around these things and just realized for once that the economy is all based around subsistence, why is the china-man unable to gain subsistence except by working for Wal-Mart? it's absolutely absurd when you look at the basis of it all. I blame the Communists mostly in China for screwing up their whole system... though the whole world's system is currently screwed up by Capitalism as well (which, of course, is a fruit of the Protestant Reformation... pretty much everything bad in the world can be traced to Martin Luther or John Calvin)

looking back I did use the term "most"; what I ought to have said was 'most' employers of unskilled laborers. skilled laborers have more of a bargaining chip in the labor contracts they seek, obviously. that doesn't mean it's always like that even for skilled laborers, especially if a skill is common.

the point of the matter is this: that an economy ought to provide access to enough work for everyone to be able to meet their duties. as I said,the man who has increased duties due to a larger family must have access to either a higher rate of pay or more hours of work, or some combination of the two.

"Economic law dictates that the cost of labor cannot exceed the profit, otherwise your business will collapse. "

which is what I've been saying from the start, except I say that if the profit is not enough to pay just wages to labor, the business SHOULD collapse, ie it shouldn't exist. there is no need to create labor just for the sake of labor... if the demand for something is not high enough that a just wage can be paid, then there is no sense in making people work on it in the first place.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='02 November 2009 - 06:33 AM' timestamp='1257157982' post='1995158']
the point of the matter is this: that an economy ought to provide access to enough work for everyone to be able to meet their duties. as I said,the man who has increased duties due to a larger family must have access to either a higher rate of pay or more hours of work, or some combination of the two.

"Economic law dictates that the cost of labor cannot exceed the profit, otherwise your business will collapse. "

which is what I've been saying from the start, except I say that if the profit is not enough to pay just wages to labor, the business SHOULD collapse, ie it shouldn't exist. there is no need to create labor just for the sake of labor... if the demand for something is not high enough that a just wage can be paid, then there is no sense in making people work on it in the first place.
[/quote]This points to the errors of Distributism, and your misunderstanding of a free market.

The level of need determines the value to the economy. If I decide to take the easiest and least skill demanding job out there, I put myself in the market with lot's of competion where the need is less than than the available supply, the value of my labor to the economy is very small. It's up to me, as owner of my abilities, to develop them and increase their value or look to a different labor need that pays more. Wal-Mart pays realistic prices for the skill level required and value to the economy. In return, they provide inexpensive goods to others. If you don't like your W-M pay, develop your skill or find another field. Life isn't easy. I know of LOT's of jobs that pay better than minimum to start. If a W-M job is the best you're capable of, then turn to social services and charity to help you provide basic survival.

Working people do not owe the sweat of their brow to slackers. Businesses do not owe a living to slackers. Society is responsible to care for the unable, but not the unwilling. Free markets provide the theatre for people to utilize their skills, inovation, new ideas, etc. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we humans can respond extremely well to need if we want to. Sadly, it's too easy for people to beleive someone else owes them instead of them being responsible for themselves.

By the way, what about addressing the questions in my last post? I think you believe that's a anomaly in the free market/capitalist system.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Anomaly