Let's Talk About Minimum Wage, Class Warfare, Wage Gaps, etc.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think you understand what the term means. I never said those were the only two options. I'm asking you, for the people who do accept low wages in order to ensure basic survival, do you consider that consensual?

First, I don't agree with the premise of your question because "low wages" is a relative term. Relative to no wage, any wage is quite high.

Secondly, the term "accept" implies that they can also "not accept", which is the correct assessment of the situation and so you answer your own question within your question.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

First, I don't agree with the premise of your question because "low wages" is a relative term. Relative to no wage, any wage is quite high.

Secondly, the term "accept" implies that they can also "not accept", which is the correct assessment of the situation and so you answer your own question within your question.

I mean if you want to play stupid semantic games just to avoid answering the question, suit yourself.

Yes, they can "not accept" and the consequences are that they starve, go homeless, etc. Under those circumstances, would you still consider someone agreeing to work for low wages as consensual?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean if you want to play stupid semantic games just to avoid answering the question, suit yourself.

Yes, they can "not accept" and the consequences are that they starve, go homeless, etc. Under those circumstances, would you still consider someone agreeing to work for low wages as consensual?

You're trying to expand the definition of "consensual" in a way that strips the word of utility, and yet you accuse me of playing semantic games?

The alternative to not accepting an employment offer is not simply starvation, it is the ability to find a better employment offer. In fact, that's an alternative even if they do accept the employment offer. It is a person's right to seek the maximum amount of money for their labour.

[Samonadreau]

My first job I made minimum wage at a gas station - $5.00/hr. that wasn't that long ago.... Actually that was like 23 years ago.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're trying to expand the definition of "consensual" in a way that strips the word of utility, and yet you accuse me of playing semantic games?

The alternative to not accepting an employment offer is not simply starvation, it is the ability to find a better employment offer. In fact, that's an alternative even if they do accept the employment offer. It is a person's right to seek the maximum amount of money for their labour.

There is not always the ability to find an better employment offer. And when the choice is “low pay” or an extended period of no job looking for better pay, you can see the situation isn’t really as simple as you make it out to be.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There is not always the ability to find an better employment offer. And when the choice is “low pay” or an extended period of no job looking for better pay, you can see the situation isn’t really as simple as you make it out to be.

I wouldn't presume to tell someone that I know better than they do what is best for them. People should be able to decide for themselves what is best for them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I wouldn't presume to tell someone that I know better than they do what is best for them. People should be able to decide for themselves what is best for them.

… cool. Has literally nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but cool, good for you.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

… cool. Has literally nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but cool, good for you.

Sure it does. If you decide you want to accept a job that pays less than minimum wage, the government tells you that you must remain unemployed instead.

The government has decided they know best for you and then prevents you from having agency and autonomy.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People should be able to decide for themselves what is best for them.

There are those that act in bad faith, that deceive, or use positions of power to make consensual agreements greatly asymmetrical and to their unfair advantage. If I con you out of your life's savings by involving you in a ponzi scheme, is that acceptable so long as you consented to give me control of your money? The idea that people always know what is best for them is a concept only the terminally naive or ideologically blind hold. Unless you are omniscient, you work with incomplete understanding of your choices even *without* deception and power working against you.

The question is not whether or not individual freedom should be limited, but how, why, and to what extent. Declaring some individual right trumps all other considerations is a lazy argument fit only for derision. Try harder.

[iggy_oi]

Sounds likes jammies hates a little thing called freedumb

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Two consenting adults should be able to do what they want, assuming they aren't doing physical harm to anyone else. That includes determining how they want to exchange labour for money.

It's not consensual when there is a power imbalance.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

It's not consensual when there is a power imbalance.

This would only be a reasonable argument if there was only one employer and one worker. But that's not the case. Furthermore, workers don't need employers to make money, they can be self-employed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This would only be a reasonable argument if there was only one employer and one worker. But that's not the case. Furthermore, workers don't need employers to make money, they can be self-employed.

Self employed people can already pay themselves whatever they want. So yes there is a power imbalance in any scenario where you are agreeing to work for someone else.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Self employed people can already pay themselves whatever they want. So yes there is a power imbalance in any scenario where you are agreeing to work for someone else.

An employer only has a "power imbalance" (what a silly term) until such time as they are paying less than an employee will accept.

As long as there is another employer willing to pay the same as, or better than, the existing employer, then there is no "power imbalance".

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

An employer only has a "power imbalance" (what a silly term) until such time as they are paying less than an employee will accept.

As long as there is another employer willing to pay the same as, or better than, the existing employer, then there is no "power imbalance".

An employer can take away an employee’s livelihood. In the overwhelming majority of cases an employee can’t take away theirs. If you consider that to be an even playing field(I hope that’s not too silly of a term for you) I’d really like to hear your hopefully equally entertaining explanation for why you think that is.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

An employer can take away an employee’s livelihood. In the overwhelming majority of cases an employee can’t take away theirs. If you consider that to be an even playing field(I hope that’s not too silly of a term for you) I’d really like to hear your hopefully equally entertaining explanation for why you think that is.

An employer can choose to employ or not employ someone.

But they can't take away someone's ability to earn a living.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

An employer can choose to employ or not employ someone.

See how even the playing is even before you’re employed?

But they can't take away someone's ability to earn a living.

Now you’re arguing there are jobs available at all times?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Now you’re arguing there are jobs available at all times?

I'm arguing that an employer can't take away someone's ability to earn a living.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I agree and you're proving my point.

If the average family can't realistically afford average things then that invalidates Weitz' argument.

The question is, though, is that ok? What does that say about our economy when regular stuff at average prices are now considered luxuries for the top earners?

Your numbers gloss over a few things that cause problems.

One is that CMHC allows people to borrow themselves into being house poor. The first step to reducing housing prices is to make the borrowing limits tighter. Right now in Calgary the median family income supports the median house. That is very balanced.

The second issue is that as more people want to live in the same area you have to accept a smaller living space. Using the average dwelling and comparing it to 25 years ago doesn’t make sense without some sort of population adjustment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm arguing that an employer can't take away someone's ability to earn a living.

In theory they could, considering earning a living is subject to someone willing to pay a living. Earning a living requires two parties, at least. That should be entirely obvious to the point where it’s surprising you need it explained.