From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 16:53:02 MDT
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 05:47:07PM -0400, Matthew Gingell wrote:
> Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
>
> > Why do we think it's somehow "right" to forbid contracts for pay that's
> > not sufficient for living alone? Since when do we expect that everyone
> > capable of working should also be capable of living alone?
>
> At least that's the philosophical perspective from which forbidding
> some kinds of contract makes sense, though of course it's only one
> possible approach.
If the economic power conditions are such that the worker's choice is between
the sub-subsistence level and totally starving, but the clearing price for the
employer is above the subsistence level, the worker can be better off being
barred from agreeing to sub-subsistence contracts. Kind of like what David
Friedman talks about sometimes, early committment to later behavior which, at
that later time, might seem irrational, can as a whole be rational. Foreclose
your options yet become better off.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 17:00:29 MDT