"Corporations like Nike pay their laborers in third world countries far below both a living wage and the actual value that they put into shoe production; Nike could double the wages of their factory workers by having their already-wealthy investors take a small haircut considering how much of a mark-up there already is on shoes and the massive profit Nike reaps as a result."
A few responses I have would be:
-if it's a known fact that laborers in third world nations are being paid well below their discounted marginal value product then entrepreneurs will bid the labor factors away from Nike, eventually raising wages up to their DMVP
-Nike cannot be accused of marking up their products because the price of a good or service is determined by the intersection of demand and supply curves in the consumer goods market and not based on production costs, i.e. value is imputed backwards.
-if third world nations are concerned about their low real wages then they should allow further market liberalization to encourage capital investment and the corresponding increase in the marginal productivity of their citizens which would to move DMVP and thus wages upward
-if a government was to intervene in the market by imposing a minimum wage above the labor factor's DMVP then this would cause chronic unemployment and an oversupply of labor in the market
-if Nike was to purposely pay their laborers above their DMVP this would also cause an increase in unemployment and an oversupply of labor in the market (this is the only point I'm not all too sure about; is there such a thing as an endogenous price floor?)
Do you guys have any other rebuttals?
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.
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.
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."
Rcder, I was talking to FotH, not you (about "evidence")
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?
Oops, sorry Wheylous.
That question makes no sense to me XD (@FotH)
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.
Was it my use of the word "good"?
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.
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?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
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.