| 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' 2005-09-14, 6:56 pm |
|
CanopyCo wrote:
>
> Robert Sturgeon wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> Distress for those that are greedy.
> The rest of us just charge a fair amount and split the take fairly.
>
How do you define "fair amount"? Some gasoline retailers claim to sell
at below cost while trying to make a profit on the stuff they sell in
their mini-marts.
> This is the reason that the minimum wage was enacted.
>
The minimum wage is a mistake because it takes out of the work force
people who are not, for whatever reason, worth that minimum wage at that
time.
> It kept people that were greedy from taking advantage of overpopulated
> areas by paying help less then they would get if they were slaves.
>
The people in those areas, whatever "overpopulated" even means in this
context, are then not motivated to move to areas with labour needs.
>
> You are missing the point entirely.
> It is not that the cheeper employee does not need the higher wage.
> It is that he is desperate to just take what ever he can get for today,
> and worry about tomorrow tomorrow.
>
What about when the qualified employees are constrained and those
available bid up the price of their labour, do you complain about that?
You don't even complain about them getting together and creating a
conspiracy to withhold labour to drive up prices, the essence of the
union.
> And you want to take advantage of him while he is in a bind /
> desperate.
> It is not that you should help him out.
> Normally that job pays X.
> It is that you should pay him X if he does that job, instead of taking
> advantage of him and only paying him 1 can of beans a day.
>
What does "normally pays X" even mean?
> And as to your cotton buyers, they are not paying you less then what
> they pay everyone else and what everyone else pays (Prevailing price
> for cotton) just because you are in a bind are they?
> I don't think so.
> But that is what you want to do.
>
The price of cotton is set by the market, not the "prevailing price".
That's what is being discussed with labour. You want to dictate the cost
of labour and obviate the market.
> You want to pay them less then what it will cost to have a slave.
> Work them to death paying less then what it costs to stay alive, then
> just get another one.
> After all, help is disposable.
>
That's quite absurd. The adversarial relationship between unions and
management in many large companies is not good compared to working
together to compete against other companies. Boeing, for random example,
could lose a lot of plane order, current and future, just because their
machinist union is greedy.
--
"How vain and foolish, then, thought I, for timid untravelled man to try
to comprehend aright this wondrous whale, by merely pouring over his
dead attenuated skeleton, stretched in this peaceful wood. No. Only in
the heart of quickest perils; only when within the eddyings of his 
flukes; only on the profound unbounded sea, can the fully invested whale
be truly and livingly found out." -+Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
|