Horseshit.
The flaw is business do not want good people, they only want people that will not prevent their customers from coming back.
Let’s say I have an employee Jane that does a stellar job and makes everyone happy making $15/hr.
I can also employe Jim who makes everyone miserable but 99% of the people will use my service anyway. I pay Jim $8/hr. It is easy to see, I am not doing anyone any favors by keeping Jane when I can get a boat load of Jims to do the job for nearly half the cost and I don’t lose many customers anyway.
I deal with a lot of entry level workers and jobs and the supply of workers always outstrips the demand. Employers can easily replace a worker every other week with no harm, rather than give raises.
Of course we use that to our advantage. I deal with helping people get off public AID and into jobs, so I deal with hotels, clubs, big box stores and retail a lot.
I’ve never had experience of a job where your Jim and Jane do anything like an equal job of not preventing customers from coming back.
What’s an example of a job where an employee who makes everyone miserable has the same value as one who makes everyone happy? (It sounds like it would have to be a job where employees don’t interact with anyone - customers or other employees.)
It’s hard to see how this sort of extreme strawman silliness contributes to a rational discussion.
It was a clear response to the extremist positions about how wonderful our supposedly free market is. The folly of such absolutist positions is a unavoidable target needing a simple rebuttal.
It’s only a strawman because you are discomforted by it and have no reasonable counterargument.
Actually it is a strawman because of the inherent contradiction between slavery and a free market.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, but it’s a free market in slaves.<rimshot>
[QUOTE=ftg]
It was a clear response to the extremist positions about how wonderful our supposedly free market is. The folly of such absolutist positions is a unavoidable target needing a simple rebuttal.
[/QUOTE]
Can you cite anything that was even remotely like a free market economy that was driven by slavery? Because if not then your assertion is basically complete horseshit. What you are doing here is basically attempting to make a connected inference that doesn’t exist. You know it. I know it. Everyone else who is rolling their eyes at your assertion know it too.
No free market existed during the time period slavery was legal in either Europe or in the US. So, no reason to go into any further detail or make a counterargument to such a bullshit assertion. As for the strawman, you basically made an over the top argument so you could slap down the strawman and go ‘Slavery! Boom, I wins the interwebs!!!111!!!’.
But we could give you some wonderful parting gifts…this Strawman Edition of the SDMB IMHO Horseshit Assertion of the Year, a lovely ceramic dog…
Even people in pre-civil war times viewed slaves as an affront to the free labor market. It was a major argument against slavery. A free market can only exist when employees and employers are able to say no and only come to agreement on mutually beneficial terms. Just like any other market.
This. Free market doesn’t mean “anything goes”.
Forced labor is not a free market.
Lack of enforcement of legal contracts is not a free market.
Monopolies are not free market (although they may occur naturally due to network effects)
Regulations are not necessarily incompatible with the free market. (i.e. building codes and other safety regulations)
The open market will set the wage for the different types of employees, and for employees of different motivations to work.
Is it fair or not is an entirely different question, and by the way who defines fair ?
Wow. Misreading a lot, aren’t you?
Cause and effect turned around: If you want an 100% unregulated totally “free” market, then slavery must be allowed. The 13th Amendment has to be seen as government regulation in the labor market.
Absolutism in political positions is bad. Moderation works out better. Some of this, some of that.
Thinking that somehow people will magically get livable wages if the government buts out is absurd and it deserves to be made fun of. Note: “made fun of”. Got it?
Armed robbery, too?
If I’m not allowed to put a gun to your head, the nature of financial transactions between us may change significantly.
ftg clearly has misconceptions about what a free market is. I suggest the rest of us ignore the distraction and carry on.
He called attention to an important point though. As did **Xema **just above.
A “free” market is one without coercion. Which is another way of saying one with no great disparity in power between the parties to the deal. Presence or absence of governmental regulation is just one aspect of “free.” Presence or absence of armed robbing or kidnapping gangs is another. Your necessity to eat today versus their ability to wait a month to get the work done is another.
This is a continuum. How free is too free and how free is not free enough *is *arguable. And certainly most factions look at the issue through the lens not of what is right or wrong but rather what is advantageous or disadvantageous for them at the moment.
My vote, as said up-thread, is that for most employees most of the time the market today is not sufficiently free in the sense of them having power broadly comparable to their employers’.