Yeah, you were talking outta your ass. I was responding to barunt's situation, and then you invent a bunch of nonsense about his situation--as if you were pulling things outta your butt. Hence, talking outta your ass. Gotta call it like I see it, and there's not much of a quicker way to say it.
I'll just chalk the rudeness off to my proposal to my suggestion of leaving free markets out of it then.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) They are? All of them? And they're totally ignorant? They don't understand the difference between $1/hour and $10/hour of their own labor? They can't even remotely gauge their own value? They can't determine if they or other employees are good, okay, or poor workers? Those are big assumptions.
I do make assumptions from time to time but this isn't one of those times. I've worked alongside minimum wagers and they really don't have any idea of what they are worth beyond the fact that they know they need to survive. I think an employee needs to know how much profit they are actually producing in order to realize what they are worth. Take into account the varying levels self-esteem of any given employee and you've really got a distorted idea of self-worth. I don't see how knowing what one's work is worth should affect someone receiving what one is worth.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) Competition and market prices. "What are the other suppliers of labor earning? What are their qualifications?"
Take into account the ideas presented in field (1) and you can see how this really doesn't matter. Minimum wagers are not as ambitious as you would like to think BBS, hence their position on the totem pole. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Sure. The same happens to other producers/suppliers--other than labor. As a consumer, you want what you paid for, or you can threaten to stop paying for it.
I mean really, if the person doesn't earn their wage it's pretty simple: you fire them. This creates initiative for people to work up to snuff.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(4) What is "fair"? Because if you say that's not fair, then we can apply your reasoning consistently. We'll reach similar scenarios that are also "unfair," e.g. the consumer who threatens to stop paying for something received by the supplier. That's unfair! So, now what? You must conclude that it is unfair when a buyer rejects a seller's offer. You can be arbitrary or engage in special pleading (?) by stating that this only applies to sellers and buyers of labor, but that wouldn't seem logical.(5) An empirical matter. Go figure.
(6) What's inefficient? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?
I'm not going to focus on the "fairness" from an earner's standpoint if it's got a stigma attached to it in your mind. How about the matter of efficiency since you seem to respect that? How is having people constantly dropping off and being added to a system really going to be efficient? It may be efficient for a single company regarding the cost of keeping people on but as workforce as a whole this can't be good for business.