Economics Questions

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Fool on the Hill — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:21:58 GMT

Nothing. But my point is that restoring him his land may not be an adequate reparation given that the crime also involves rendering that land worthless.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Autolykos — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:36:05 GMT

Fool on the Hill:
If someone is forced off his land into slavery and spends most of his life building up someone else's plantation, then I think he "deserves" more than just his old land. He has contributed to creating a vast quantity of wealth whose presence in the market has made his old way of life uncompetitive. (Of course I don't think being paid more is the best solution; I think the solution is to take control of the means of production.)

What entitles his old way of life to be competitive for any given length of time?

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Wheylous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:32:12 GMT

Yes :P

But ah, fine, I suppose you mean some forums where people tend to dig a bit more beneath the surface before coming to conclusions.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Fool on the Hill — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:57:58 GMT

Was it my use of the word "good"?

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Rcder — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:34:23 GMT

I've been looking for message boards of other viewpoints. Know of any good modern liberal ones?

The Democratic Underground would be a good place to start; most "modern liberal" magazines like The Nation have forums, too. Kind of a weird question, to be honest.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Wheylous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:32:11 GMT

That question makes no sense to me XD (@FotH)

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Rcder — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:29:15 GMT

Rcder, I was talking to FotH, not you (about "evidence")

Oops, sorry Wheylous.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Fool on the Hill — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:17:40 GMT

I really wanna see an anarcho-syndicalist debate a modern liberal.

I've been looking for message boards of other viewpoints. Know of any good modern liberal ones?

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Wheylous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:15:44 GMT

Rcder, I was talking to FotH, not you (about "evidence")

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Fool on the Hill — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:13:02 GMT

The key error here is the word "deserve". If someone is kicked off his land by the govt, he certainly deserves to get it back.

But no matter what the injustices suffered by a person in his sad miserable life, that does not make him "deserve" to be paid more for his labors than the next guy.

If someone is forced off his land into slavery and spends most of his life building up someone else's plantation, then I think he "deserves" more than just his old land. He has contributed to creating a vast quantity of wealth whose presence in the market has made his old way of life uncompetitive. (Of course I don't think being paid more is the best solution; I think the solution is to take control of the means of production.)

Going a bit deeper into this analysis, we may ask, what determines the demand curve for labor, meaning what determines how much an employer will be willing to pay someone? And the answer to this is also easy to discover if we ask ourselves, why did the employer open a business in the first place? And we all know the answer, to get as much satisfaction as possible from it, [which usually translates into "to make as much money as possible"]. So that every business decision is always made by appealing to the question, "If I do this, will I make more or less money?"

So that the demand curve is determined by those options that the employer thinks will make him the most money. That's the way it is.

Yes, this also helps explain Nike's action vis-a-vis the state. If Nike decides to donate money to certain politicians, then it is because they think doing so will make them more money. So the actions of the state are determined by the "demand" of their funders. If aggressive measures will yield more money than peaceful ones, then they will choose war. I am not very familiar with the Nike situation, but a little research shows that one country they have factories in is Vietnam. I also assume the Nike has donated money to the US government. And I also know that the US government was involved in destroying thousands of acres of agricultural land via bombs and chemical warfare. It also destroyed homes, businesses, and many many lives. One could see how such a policy might increase the supply of laborers willing to work in a Nike factory and therefore also decrease the price of wages. This may even have a ripple effect and cause the wages in, say, Indonesia to decrease. So it seems relevant to me to note the effect aggression has in determining the level of supply and demand.

Oddly enough, the worker, too, when deciding whether to work and what wage to ask, is also guided by the same lodestar, of what will give me the most satisfaction. He will never take a job at a given salary unless he is convinced that a] he is better off working for this salary than not working at all, and b] he cannot find something better.

And I think what the argument is trying to bring up is the other options the worker has. He does not merely have to take the options given to him. He may also choose to fight back, to strike, to occupy, to make demands of the government. To make such choices requires dialog and cooperation with other workers.

Are any of these two people being greedy? If we choose to call their atitude greedy, then they are both greedy, because both want the same thing for themselves, the most satisfaction possible under the circs. A more enlightened person might say neither of them are greedy, but merely seeking to improve their lot in life for themselves and their family.

Perhaps a better question to ask is, are any of these people being aggressive? I think in the case of Nike the answer could indeed be "yes."

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Smiling Dave — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 05:06:15 GMT

If so, then saying the workers deserve to be paid more is not so unreasonable.

The key error here is the word "deserve". If someone is kicked off his land by the govt, he certainly deserves to get it back.

But no matter what the injustices suffered by a person in his sad miserable life, that does not make him "deserve" to be paid more for his labors than the next guy.

Indeed, let us not confuse moral and scientific issues here.

Let us address the scientific issues first.

The first question is, what determines the wages a person will get? And the answer is, as so often in economics questions, look to the law of supply and demand. That is what will determine his wages. Nothing else. Neither justice, nor injustice, nor govt, nor exhortations, can erase the law, just as none of those things can erase the law of gravity.

Going a bit deeper into this analysis, we may ask, what determines the demand curve for labor, meaning what determines how much an employer will be willing to pay someone? And the answer to this is also easy to discover if we ask ourselves, why did the employer open a business in the first place? And we all know the answer, to get as much satisfaction as possible from it, [which usually translates into "to make as much money as possible"]. So that every business decision is always made by appealing to the question, "If I do this, will I make more or less money?"

So that the demand curve is determined by those options that the employer thinks will make him the most money. That's the way it is.

Oddly enough, the worker, too, when deciding whether to work and what wage to ask, is also guided by the same lodestar, of what will give me the most satisfaction. He will never take a job at a given salary unless he is convinced that a] he is better off working for this salary than not working at all, and b] he cannot find something better.

Now for the moral questions:

Are any of these two people being greedy? If we choose to call their atitude greedy, then they are both greedy, because both want the same thing for themselves, the most satisfaction possible under the circs. A more enlightened person might say neither of them are greedy, but merely seeking to improve their lot in life for themselves and their family.

Are there circumstances where an employee "deserves" more than he is being paid? It is up to someone answering in the affirmative to lay out his value system for examination, that we may understand why someone desreves to be paid more than the law of supply and demand will apportion him.

Also, he must explain how defying this law will be accomplished.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Rcder — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:40:17 GMT

But to be more on topic, you have not presented any evidence for your claim.

I don't really have time tonight, but tomorrow morning I can post links to articles on discounted marginal value product and price floors, if you'd like.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Wheylous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:28:22 GMT

But to be more on topic, you have not presented any evidence for your claim.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Wheylous — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:26:57 GMT

I really wanna see an anarcho-syndicalist debate a modern liberal.

Re: What's wrong with this argument?

Fool on the Hill — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:54:38 GMT

Saying that people prefer to work in factories vs. the alternative is looking at things rather narrowly. We need to consider the larger social factors that drive these people to work in factories. Is the government forcing the people off the land or depriving them of a living in another way? If so, then saying the workers deserve to be paid more is not so unreasonable. If group A destroys the livelihood of group B, and group B then chooses to go to work for group A (or even group C), it would not make much sense to me to say that whatever the market determines as the wages for group B is somehow just--even from a propertarian perspective.