It has now been 15 years since the federal minimum wage rose to $7.25
It has now been 15 years since the federal minimum wage rose to $7.25
You're viewing part of a thread.
Say that's true. Do you then actually believe that if you're not smart or you "don't have drive," you somehow deserve to be unhoused or starve, to be unable to access healthcare?
I'm all for people improving their lives, but as a baseline I just don't believe that certain people deserve the consequences of horrible poverty just because they didn't or couldn't perform academically.
Also what's the justification for having a system that allows employers to exploit workers by paying poverty wages while materially benefiting from that labor?
The question fundamentally misunderstands the nature of human existence and the principles of a free society. No one deserves to starve or be unhoused, but reality does not cater to mere desires or needs. The essence of survival and prosperity lies in an individual's ability to think, produce, and trade value for value.
Those who are not smart or lack drive must still be responsible for their own lives. A free society offers opportunities for all, but it does not guarantee outcomes regardless of effort or ability. The moral and practical basis of capitalism is that each individual must earn their way through rational thought and productive work.
It is not the role of employers to ensure the well-being of their workers beyond the agreed-upon exchange of labor for wages. Employers do not exploit workers; they offer them opportunities. Workers are free to accept these terms or seek better ones elsewhere. The notion of "poverty wages" ignores the individual's responsibility to improve their skills and increase their value in the marketplace.
Workers are de facto responsible for creating the opportunities that employers gate keep. Employers violate workers' inalienable rights. The workers are de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match.
No one is responsible for creating land. Landlords deny everyone's equal claim to land
Your assertion that employers violate workers' inalienable rights by controlling opportunities does not align with the principles of a free society.. Employers provide opportunities through their legitimate ownership of capital and resources, and workers voluntarily agree to the terms of employment. This voluntary exchange is a fundamental aspect of a free market. Legal and de facto responsibilities are aligned through voluntary contracts, and any perceived imbalance does not justify infringing on property rights.
As for landlords and land, the legitimate acquisition and ownership of property are central to individual liberty. If landlords have acquired land through just means, they have the right to control its use. The idea of equal claims to land undermines the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer of holdings. Historical injustices in acquisition should be rectified, but this does not negate the current rights of property owners.
An employer, in principle, can hire both labor and capital, so they don't have to own capital. In practice, employers tend to be corporations that own capital due to bargaining power.
Workers consent to employment terms, but they can't fulfill them. The problem is that consent is not a sufficient condition to transfer de facto responsibility.
Abolishing employment doesn't infringe on property rights. Employment contracts infringe on labor's property rights to the fruits of labor
@politicsWhile it is true that an employer may theoretically hire both labor and capital, in practice, the most efficient and productive enterprises are those where employers possess and manage capital. This ownership enables the coordination and investment necessary for innovation and progress. The bargaining power you mention is not an arbitrary imposition but a natural consequence of providing value through the creation and management of capital.
I'm aware of the standard line.
De facto responsibility can't be transferred from the employees solely to the employer to match the legal responsibility assignment in the employer-employee contract. A thought experiment showing this is to consider an employer and employee cooperating to commit a crime. The employee can't argue that they sold their labor, and are not responsible. The law correctly applies the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. Both are criminous
Responsibility is an inescapable part of human existence. Each individual must be accountable for their actions, regardless of the roles they play within a larger organisation. The idea that an employee can absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming they merely sold their labor is a dangerous fallacy. It undermines the very essence of individual autonomy and moral agency.
Consider the case of an employer and an employee conspiring to commit a crime. Both parties are making conscious choices, and thus, both bear the responsibility for those choices. Attempting to transfer blame entirely to the employer is not only logically flawed but morally indefensible. The employee, in choosing to participate in the crime, exercises their own judgment and will, and must face the consequences of those actions.
The law rightly reflects this reality by holding both the employer and the employee accountable. This alignment of legal responsibility with de facto responsibility is essential for a just and moral society. Each person must recognize and accept their own role in their actions and the inherent responsibilities that come with it. To do otherwise is to deny one's own humanity and the ethical duty to live as a rational, self-determined being.
Thank you for making my argument for me. Now, what morally relevantly changes when workers cooperate to produce a widget on behalf of the employer instead of committing crimes for the employer? Do they become non-conscious non-responsible robots? No.
Legal responsibility matching de facto responsibility implies that all firms should be mandated to be worker coops, and rules out employer-employee contracts. In worker coops, the workers are jointly legally responsible for the results
The notion that legal responsibility should align with de facto responsibility and thereby necessitate that all firms operate as worker cooperatives, banning employer-employee contracts, is an egregious affront to the principles of individual rights and freedom. This proposition assumes a collectivist paradigm where the individual’s agency and sovereignty are subsumed under the collective will of the group.
In the moral universe that respects individual liberty, each person has the right to enter into contracts of their own volition. The employer-employee relationship is one such contract, where each party consents to specific terms for mutual benefit. To mandate that all firms must function as worker cooperatives is to obliterate the sanctity of voluntary association, replacing it with a coerced collectivism that is antithetical to the very essence of a free society.
Worker cooperatives may be suitable for some, but to impose this structure universally disregards the diverse needs and aspirations of individuals. It denies the entrepreneur the right to create and lead a venture according to their vision, and it strips employees of the choice to enter into employment agreements that they find advantageous.
Legal responsibility should indeed align with de facto responsibility, but this alignment must be rooted in the acknowledgment of individual rights and the freedom to choose. Forcing all firms to become worker cooperatives would destroy the foundation of capitalism—the system that recognises and protects individual rights, allowing for innovation, productivity, and human flourishing.
The tenet that legal and de facto responsibility match, when applied to property theoretic questions, is the tenet that people have an inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. The latter is the principled basis of property rights. Since employment violates the former principle, it also violates the latter. Employment contracts violate property rights' principled basis.
Labor isn't transferable.
The foundations of capitalism need destroying