Posted on 08/18/2023 6:06:39 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
And why should I care about the opinion of some no-name professor? There are a lot of economists and professors who aren't Marxists that I wouldn't trust for any financial or economic advice.
But that's why I also mentioned the legal aspect: it is a point of statute (as noted in the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) in American law that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce."
Hence why I did not say "use"; gasoline, if sold but not used can be theoretically re-sold or re-purposed.
It is amazing their are Freepers, the R rock base, can't understand the concept of a free market for labor.
In what universe do you think America's current statutory and legal environment is a "free market for labor"?
One thing I’ve had enough of is hearing the phrase, “since Covid”, to rationalize poor customer service. The companies don’t want to hire more reps and use Covid as an excuse.
Sometimes I’ll beat them to it and interrupt, “Don’t be blaming this on Covid.”
That’s a really good question.
There’s no question that something dramatically changed with COVID. I think we have seen a complete breakdown in the circular relationship between employer, employee, and government that is necessary for an economy to succeed — and it may never be fixed.
Wow, you really don’t think there is free market for labor? That makes you a slaver. Puke.
I repeat: in what universe do you think America's current statutory and legal environment is a "free market for labor"?
I want my large lawn mowed. I put up a sign: “Mow 1 acre. pays $20.” I will get no one. Put up a sign that says “Mow 1 acre, $600”. I will get 100s of takers. So the trick is to set a price point FOR LABOR between $20 and $600. Get it LABOR IS A COMMODITY.
This universe. There is free market for labor. The reason why “management” is having so many issues getting people to work is they need to relearn economic basics. The issues we see now prove my point EVERY DAY. The baby boom supplied an almost endless supply of mid to high IQ labor for over 50 years. Now they are retiring and “management” no longer has the upper hand. They will learn.
From daily experience, I'm finding places of business that are so hard up for employees that they hire people with a good work ethic that are just incapable of performing at the necessary level. There are also plenty with poor work ethics whose ability to perform can't be evaluated.
My wife just turned 65. I'm 8 days from 67. My wife is actively processing paperwork to retire. We're currently debt free and have put aside resources for retirement. My reservation is some looming costs. We probably need a new roof based on the $hit$how in the kitchen last night when a flash flood generating downpour generated a rain storm over the kitchen sink. Still, it would be nice to leave the 55 to 80 hour weeks in the rear view mirror. It will result in a huge decrease in income. We'll be buying less and paying fewer taxes.
Now suppose they get themselves hurt while working on your property (by stepping in a hole and twisting their ankle, for example). Congratulations, you've now opened yourself up to personal liability in an injury lawsuit.
You seem to be neglecting the impact that insurance requirements (both personal, commercial, health, and otherwise as required by legislation) have had on this "free market for labor".
(Plus, not all markets for labor are equal in America. Try and translate your lawnmower example to the medical field, for example.)
If you settle on a rate of $40 for the one acre and it takes someone four hours to do the job, then you are already violating the minimum wage laws in at least 27 states plus the District of Columbia.
And if you pay someone $100 for this work and they do it a dozen times over the course of the summer, you have to file a 1099 form to report the money you've paid them. Otherwise, they are considered W-2 employees and you have to deduct (and pay) payroll taxes, make WCI payments, etc. for their work. How can it possibly be a "free market" for labor when you have so many conditions imposed by a third party that isn't the employer or the employee?
Many people, including many self-described 'conservatives', really want to recreate the European class system our forefathers rejected. Ask them why the secretary to the assistant deputy directory of marketing should make $300,000 a year, and they'll say "That's the free market. They were able to negotiate that salary". But ask them about the balance of exchanging wages for labor, and they'll say "lazy POSs! If they don't give us what we want for what we want to pay, the problem's with THEM".
The quiet premise that motivates that reaction is a hard belief in the entitlement to SOME other peoples' labor, a belief in a moral obligation for SOME to perform, but one from which SOME OTHERS are free -- allowing them to negotiate compensation for their labor, which THEY still own. It only makes sense if you accept there are two different categories of market participants.
The same thing happened after every large pre-modern outbreak of plague. The reduction of the working-class population created a scarcity of labor available for upper-class demands, creating a market which favored the laborers who were then able to bargain for better wages. Historically, this would make the upper class "big mad" (as is said, these days), and there were many attempts to force the lower class laborers to accept ancient pay rates which no longer reflected the inflated expenses experienced by the laborers themselves. The upper class felt genuinely entitled to have that labor and thought that workers who could hold out for greater pay were unfairly taking advantage of, well, economic reality.
How about one in which someone using your account to post has already swallowed the premise that there are people who can labor, but who are holding out for better pay because they are free to do so. Would that do?
I'm not sure I understand your example. Posting on Free Republic not only isn't labor for me, but you're also supposing for the sake of argument that someone else is using my account.
(Because I have not denied that there are people who are holding out for better pay because they choose to do so; only highlighted actual observations of people who are unwilling to do a job they voluntarily applied for, and who are likewise being notorious slackers about it. It'll be hard to "hold out for better pay" in the eyes of other employers if you were fired or let go from a lower-paying job due to poor performance.)
Thanks. I realized I was not clear enough. We definitely agree!
Gee, I wonder why?
The reality is that almost every political/economic policy question in the public domain relates to an underlying element of the human condition: People expect to pay as little as they can for what they buy, and charge as much as possible for what they sell.
This drives the world in which we live. Four key issues that need to be considered here are:
1. For most people, what they "sell" is their labor -- not a finished/packaged product or a well-defined service that is sold directly to a customer.
2. The system eventually breaks down in an affluent society because it's impossible to meet everyone's demands. As one Freeper astutely noted a while back: "You can't have $30/hour wages and Walmart prices in the same buyer-seller market."
3. The irreconcilable conflict described in Items #1 and #2 are the reason why slavery had been a feature of every human civilization in the past, and why "free trade" with many poverty-stricken countries is so ingrained in our economy today.
4. In a system with no slavery and increasingly protected domestic industries, the inevitable consequence is that more and more economic activity takes place on an involuntary basis where buyers and sellers don't interact freely. This is what drives massive government spending and corporate fascism in our modern economy. The society would simply break down unless people were obligated to buy things they have no interest in buying -- and at inflated prices that couldn't exist in an open transaction between a buyer and a seller. That would include public infrastructure, aircraft carriers, COVID vaccines, ObamaCare premiums, Medicare, public schools, etc.
This post is one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.