From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 13:00:58 MDT
owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
> 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.
>
### Define sub-subsistence.
If subsistence means survival without growth, then sub-subsistence is same
as starving. Something doesn't fit here.
Barring contracts below a certain wage level will result in some transfer of
income to the workers, just like unionization of a factory, but at the cost
of reducing the flexibility of the system as a whole. In the long run this
rigid system will be less productive and prone to wild oscillations
(strikes, bankruptcy), harming financially all involved. Irrational in the
long run.
Wage subsidies retain the flexibility of the market, while still allowing
one's "basic needs generosity" to be expressed. Vastly superior to minimum
wage laws.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 10:06:50 MDT