I wasn't serious, you know. People have freedom of association and contract. They can organize and cooperate for any lawful purpose.
Sure, and that would be fine. Some workers are more valuable than others even in the same position because the former can bring more to the table. But if Joe and Bob are equally qualified, should Joe's need give him the nod--and the higher salary--over Bob?
The definition of "market rate" is indeed "usual," and along those lines without trying to juice the definition to be the one you want. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/market-rate https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/market-rate/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_rate Anyone can argue, of course, what they want to. But I'd say that anyone who would argue that sweatshop wages represent the true value of labor and that getting paid minimum wage in the U.S. to do what sweatshop workers will do for pennies means that they are overpaid has lost any logical or moral ground to talk about whether something is exploitative or not. Not necessarily. Labor does not have a fixed value across all contexts. I can as easily argue that the person receiving $7.25/hour is grossly overpaid given that similar labor can be obtained at 3¢/hour. And a lower wage does not necessarily indicate exploitation (even if one accepts that exploitation can occur with willing participation of the exploited). Standards and costs of living can be vastly different. Decreeing that some labor is worth (and can only therefore be compensated at a rate of) $7.25/hour dooms those in developing countries to unemployment. Their only advantage in the market is price.[/quote]
The problem arises with the interview. They both may be equally qualified, you and I both know that people get hired because of other factors like personality, looks, the frackin' shirt you wear that day, etc..
That's the definition, and that's what I said. The market rate is the "usual" rate when you're talking about a free market. The usual price of goods in, say, Soviet Russia was definitely not the market rate. Morality is subjective, and exploitation is a matter of perspective. Would you rather a person in a developing country work in a "sweatshop" or be unemployed? Or work in their next best alternative? Would they rather? Again, there is no set objective value for labor. It depends on who is doing it, where, when, and in what context.
It should be a living wage. If you don't like that, then UBI. Let employers face getting employees when they pay less than a living wage.
Define the conditions this wage will enable. Does it cover living on one's own? With roommates? Supporting a spouse? Children? Owning a car? Having a second job? With what level of debt? Give me a number that covers all cases. Or will we have some official decide who gets what? I might come around on a UBI, but if I do, the UBI I'll support will not be a "live by yourself in New York Coty and own a car" level of income.
JFC. If you don’t like the term “living wage”, how about a wage at or above the cost of living. Is that good enough for you?
See the questions I asked @steve2^4 A "living wage" is nice-sounding, but what does it actually mean?
A “cost of living wage” would be that you get paid and you don’t have to be on food stamps and public safety nets. And before you give me a bunch of bullshit about who and how many in the household and all that bullshit, have you ever been on welfare? If not, then trust the people who have. Believe me, you can’t survive on it. I lived with various siblings in the early 80s and on college campus with pell grants. I had to join the army to get off welfare. If I worked more than 29.5 hours a week - on minimum wage, they didn’t cut the food stamps, they cut the medical care - which I needed for the child who was the reason I was on welfare.
Yes, and the standard will have a cost. If you can arrive at a cost, you must know what you're buying.
Before you change the subject, why not answer those questions? The individual who lives with parents and the individual who has rent, a spouse, and two kids have very different needs. Do you pay the latter more or both the same? Who determines what amount is appropriate? These are questions that must be answered if you're advocating policy.
"Cost of living" is subjective almost to the point of being a useless proposition. Even if most people in your group agree that "three hots and a cot" satisfies those terms, there's always gonna be that one screechy douchecanoe who thinks electronics and cosmetics are necessities of life. And so, every time "cost of living" comes up, I cannot help but think of Princess Vespa. AND I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT!
Yep. Therein lies the problem. There's no (reasonable) single salary that's a "living wage" for all people in all circumstances. Inevitably, the impossibility of setting a single number for a living wage means that someone will have to determine what that number should be for each individual. I'm sure nothing could go wrong there...
Or maybe we could try arguing policy on its merits instead of slippery-sloping the fuck out of everything?
Unless a policy has specifics, it cannot be said to have merit. Intentions are no substitute for results.
