From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 20:40:03 MDT
Rafal replies to Matthew, who wrote
> > 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,
Can you enumerate some of the assumptions behind this statement?
I don't know of any realistic ones, but enumerate them just the same
if you would.
Thanks,
Lee
> 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 productiv
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 20:49:49 MDT