Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
- Something_Different
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: June 25th, 2020, 6:10 pm
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
Do you happen to have similar sources for your claim that benefits (like an increased minimum wage, for example) demotivate workers from retraining? I feel like I've heard this argument often in this context.
I can easily admit that providing handouts gives people *some* additional motivation to stay where they are (and indeed I think this is how it's usually justified), but in order for this to be a compelling argument, we have to show that this demotivation is significant enough to actually tip the balance in some peoples' minds, and it's not at all clear to me that it is. From what I know of people who have lived on government assistance, it is a difficult and stressful life, and most would leave it if they had any way to do so.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
No. I agree with your description of a "common" as a shared resource which no individual or small group has a personal vested interest in protecting/maintaining if others don't also contribute (and who will therefore be at a competitive disadvantage if they unilaterally do so), and which therefore must be protected/maintained by a central authority (government) using taxation.GE Morton wrote:...Did you have some different understanding of a "common"?
I think the concept of a common is a subset of the larger concept of interdependence. As I said, I think the basis of a lot of political arguments about such things as rights and tax policy is disagreement as to the extent to which that interdependence exists, what effect it has and whether we should address it.
A classic part of the argument is over material equality and inequality. People who are broadly classified as being on the left, politically, see inequality as inherently bad for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is argued to be a general environment in which it causes us all to live. Other people (such as yourself) maintain that there is nothing inherently wrong with inequality, and perhaps consider the case of an unequal society in which the poorest are still better off than the poorest in a more equal society. Then arguments about such things as human psychology often follow.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
Hmmm. While various interdependencies will usually be correlated with the existence of a common, the latter is not a subset of the former. Many commons are shared by people who have few or no interactions with one another, such as inhabitants of different islands who fish in the same strait.
Moreover, interdependencies are consequences of social living, not a precursor or condition for it. The great advantage (for humans) of a social lifestyle is that it enables a division of labor, allowing people to forego remaining inefficient generalists and instead develop real expertise at different tasks. That automatically creates interdependencies: Alfie becomes good at smelting iron and making tools, but knows nothing about farming. So he relies on Bruno, the farmer, for food, while Bruno relies on Alfie for plow blades, shovels, hoes.
Also, when lefties invoke "interdependence," they often pay scant heed to the "inter-" part. An interdependency implies contributions from all parties to it. But they often defend mere dependence, i.e., parasitism by persons who contribute nothing to the commonweal.
Well, they'll have to complain to Mother Nature about the inherent "badness" of material inequalities. Those inequalities are endemic among every species, plant and animal. Some pine trees grow taller than others, some tadpoles swim faster than others, some leopards are better hunters than others, some individuals of every species live longer than others. It is not material inequalities which disrupt social tranquility; it is the envy they evoke, rationalized and justified by leftist demagogues.A classic part of the argument is over material equality and inequality. People who are broadly classified as being on the left, politically, see inequality as inherently bad for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is argued to be a general environment in which it causes us all to live.
Rawls wrote, "“The natural distribution [of talents] is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.”
--- Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p.102
What Rawls doesn't explain is how a factual situation that is neither just nor unjust gives rise to a moral duty to "deal with" such facts.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
Sounds like a great argument against even having a minimum wage. Which is okay, but of course is a different topic. Here in the Real World there is a minimum wage (despite your ideas). Given that, determining what it should be is covered nowhere in your post. Just sayin.GE Morton wrote: ↑June 24th, 2020, 11:27 amHow much profits the company makes is irrelevant. MacDonald's, BTW, does not pay workers' wages; the franchisee does (93% of MacDonald's outlets are owned by franchisees).LuckyR wrote: ↑June 24th, 2020, 2:27 am
Waitstaff who get tips make below the minimum wage, but commonly make a lot more than it when their tips are taken into account. OTOH, workers at fast food joints don't make tips, so truly make the minimum wage. The fast food joints are typically franchises of large multinational corporations. For example McDonald's has 205,000 employees , of whom 90,000 make minimum wage. Giving all of them a 25% raise would still have a full-time worker below the poverty level for a family of four, cost about 400 million dollars, but McDonald's has profits of about $6 billion. Totally affordable for the corporation.
Lefties are constantly, and fallaciously, arguing that the measure of the "fairness" of a worker's wage is determined by comparing it to the incomes of the owners, managers, investors, etc. in the business. They have NOTHING to do with each other. Each is determined by the law of supply and demand. A worker will be paid what his services are worth on the market, as will the salaries of managers, CEOs, and the profits of investors. Since the supply and demand for those various skills and assets vary enormously, so will the prices paid for them.
Nor is it relevant that a minimum wage worker cannot support a family on that wage. In the first place, few of those minimum wage workers have families to support. They are young, single, and probably living at home. It is their first job. But whether a worker can support a family on his wage is of no concern to the employer --- he is not their mother or rich uncle. He's not responsible for their welfare, any more than you are when you buy a burger from MacDonald's, or get a haircut at your favorite salon. He pays the market rate for the services he buys, just as you do when you buy anything. You pay what you think those products and services are worth; if the price is too high, you pass on it. You don't worry about whether the owner of the business can live on the income he makes.
The only solution for a worker who is dissatisfied with his wage is to improve his skills, or acquire new ones worth more on the market (as most MacDonald's workers eventually do). The world doesn't owe anyone a living.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
A different topic? The title of the thread is Minimum Wage --- Markets and Morals." I think that pretty clearly embraces the issue of the morality of minimum wage laws.LuckyR wrote: ↑June 28th, 2020, 3:15 am
Sounds like a great argument against even having a minimum wage. Which is okay, but of course is a different topic. Here in the Real World there is a minimum wage (despite your ideas). Given that, determining what it should be is covered nowhere in your post. Just sayin.
What the minimum wage "should be" is zero.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
With the exception of the positions of a few extreme ideologies, I think it's widely understood that the arguments against inequality do not advocate that societies should strive for perfect equality among everyone. Rather, opposition to inequality is usually directed at the most extreme forms of inequality when and where it manifests in the suffering that results from the inability to meet basic human needs.GE Morton wrote: ↑June 27th, 2020, 12:22 pmWell, they'll have to complain to Mother Nature about the inherent "badness" of material inequalities. Those inequalities are endemic among every species, plant and animal. Some pine trees grow taller than others, some tadpoles swim faster than others, some leopards are better hunters than others, some individuals of every species live longer than others. It is not material inequalities which disrupt social tranquility; it is the envy they evoke, rationalized and justified by leftist demagogues.Steve3007 wrote: ↑June 27th, 2020, 6:43 am A classic part of the argument is over material equality and inequality. People who are broadly classified as being on the left, politically, see inequality as inherently bad for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is argued to be a general environment in which it causes us all to live.
Rawls wrote, "“The natural distribution [of talents] is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.”
--- Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p.102
What Rawls doesn't explain is how a factual situation that is neither just nor unjust gives rise to a moral duty to "deal with" such facts.
GE, you've mentioned moral duty in posts in the past, and I'm curious to hear you bring it up here. Could you elaborate on this some? Personally, I've considered that the recognition of suffering could be said to be the source of all moral duty. It's not an idea I've had time to explore much, but it seems relevant here.
It seems that in discussions of political morality such as this, we primarily talk of the legitimate role of government as being to protect freedoms - i.e. to use its punitive power to restrict the behavior of those who would make a moral transgression by violating another's rights, but we rarely discuss in depth the idea of moral duties and the role of government with respect to them. But if there are moral duties that exist as a counterpart to the moral claims that a government protects, is it not also a legitimate use of governmental power to ensure that moral duties are performed, in addition to protecting rights? In other words, it is not an appropriate use of force to punish the both actions that are moral transgressions as well as those that are a failure to perform one's duties? I'd be interested to hear thoughts about this.
— Epictetus
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
It seems to be a feature of human psychology that we measure our status not in absolute terms but relative to the people around us. Would you say that this is only a feature of human psychology as a result of the actions of "leftist demagogues"?GE Morton wrote:Well, they'll have to complain to Mother Nature about the inherent "badness" of material inequalities. Those inequalities are endemic among every species, plant and animal. Some pine trees grow taller than others, some tadpoles swim faster than others, some leopards are better hunters than others, some individuals of every species live longer than others. It is not material inequalities which disrupt social tranquility; it is the envy they evoke, rationalized and justified by leftist demagogues.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
But the assumption there --- that inequality entails poverty --- is false. Poverty is not a "manifestation" of inequality. That Alfie is poor has nothing to do with the fact that Bruno is rich (unless, of course, Bruno gained his wealth by stealing it from Alfie). You need to apply the "non-existence test" here --- would Alfie be any better off if Bruno did not exist?
That Alfie is poor is due to factors specific to him; the comparative prosperity of others is not the cause of his poverty. While Alfie's poverty may be a matter of moral concern, it is not made any worse by the fact that others are better off. Material inequalities are morally irrelevant.
That is a cogent and important question. To answer it we need to determine what moral duties people have, how to characterize them, and rationally justify them. That requires a moral theory. I'll sketch one in a followup post.It seems that in discussions of political morality such as this, we primarily talk of the legitimate role of government as being to protect freedoms - i.e. to use its punitive power to restrict the behavior of those who would make a moral transgression by violating another's rights, but we rarely discuss in depth the idea of moral duties and the role of government with respect to them. But if there are moral duties that exist as a counterpart to the moral claims that a government protects, is it not also a legitimate use of governmental power to ensure that moral duties are performed, in addition to protecting rights? In other words, it is not an appropriate use of force to punish the both actions that are moral transgressions as well as those that are a failure to perform one's duties? I'd be interested to hear thoughts about this.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
It is apparently a feature of human psychology (and not only humans; other primates also exhibit it). It is non-rational, but so are all other emotional responses. But envy is destructive, which is why it is condemned by almost all religions and moral codes. It is one of the "seven deadly sins."Steve3007 wrote: ↑June 28th, 2020, 4:03 pmIt seems to be a feature of human psychology that we measure our status not in absolute terms but relative to the people around us. Would you say that this is only a feature of human psychology as a result of the actions of "leftist demagogues"?GE Morton wrote:Well, they'll have to complain to Mother Nature about the inherent "badness" of material inequalities. Those inequalities are endemic among every species, plant and animal. Some pine trees grow taller than others, some tadpoles swim faster than others, some leopards are better hunters than others, some individuals of every species live longer than others. It is not material inequalities which disrupt social tranquility; it is the envy they evoke, rationalized and justified by leftist demagogues.
Lefties, however, instead of condemning it, proffer pretexts for justifying it.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
I'm not making that assumption, at least not here. By 'manifestation', I mean that the poverty is just the visible or outward expression of the inequality. In other words, it's a form that the economic inequality takes, and it's how we recognize that it exists. I'm not arguing that poverty is 'due to' inequality, i.e. caused or made worse by it - that would be a whole separate argument in itself.GE Morton wrote: ↑June 28th, 2020, 9:54 pmBut the assumption there --- that inequality entails poverty --- is false. Poverty is not a "manifestation" of inequality. That Alfie is poor has nothing to do with the fact that Bruno is rich (unless, of course, Bruno gained his wealth by stealing it from Alfie). You need to apply the "non-existence test" here --- would Alfie be any better off if Bruno did not exist?
That Alfie is poor is due to factors specific to him; the comparative prosperity of others is not the cause of his poverty. While Alfie's poverty may be a matter of moral concern, it is not made any worse by the fact that others are better off. Material inequalities are morally irrelevant.
Thanks, I look forward to reading it.GE Morton wrote: ↑June 28th, 2020, 9:54 pmThat is a cogent and important question. To answer it we need to determine what moral duties people have, how to characterize them, and rationally justify them. That requires a moral theory. I'll sketch one in a followup post.It seems that in discussions of political morality such as this, we primarily talk of the legitimate role of government as being to protect freedoms - i.e. to use its punitive power to restrict the behavior of those who would make a moral transgression by violating another's rights, but we rarely discuss in depth the idea of moral duties and the role of government with respect to them. But if there are moral duties that exist as a counterpart to the moral claims that a government protects, is it not also a legitimate use of governmental power to ensure that moral duties are performed, in addition to protecting rights? In other words, it is not an appropriate use of force to punish the both actions that are moral transgressions as well as those that are a failure to perform one's duties? I'd be interested to hear thoughts about this.
— Epictetus
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
It's interesting that you mention that primates exhibit this behavior. One of Jane Goodall's experiments with the chimps she was observing, which made a strong impression on me, was to place a large pile of bananas, more than any chimp could eat, into an area where the chimps would find it. What this seemed to trigger what that the stronger members of the tribe, who would typically cooperate with the rest of the tribe and share food, would discover the wealth of bananas, seize them for themselves and defend them from the other members of their own tribe if they tried to take any. What is striking to me is that the introduction of a surplus into the tribe would be the occasion of the advent of both envy and greed in the animals, on the part of the weaker and stronger members of the tribe, respectively. It seems to me that envy and greed are in a sense a mirror image of each other.GE Morton wrote: ↑June 28th, 2020, 10:06 pmIt is apparently a feature of human psychology (and not only humans; other primates also exhibit it). It is non-rational, but so are all other emotional responses. But envy is destructive, which is why it is condemned by almost all religions and moral codes. It is one of the "seven deadly sins."
This is a generalization which of course, like most, has some truth to it but is not universally so. In light of what I said above, it might be interesting to note that so-called 'lefties' often make a mirror-image generalization about conservatives - that instead of condemning greed, they in their turn make pretexts for justifying it as a means to economic gain for all.
— Epictetus
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
Oh, I think we can recognize poverty without knowing a thing about how well off anyone else is. If I come across a shanty in Appalachia without a source of heat, plumbing, or running water, with no food in the pantry and occupied by sickly adults and malnourished children, I can see they are in poverty, without knowing anything about how many millionaires there are in New York. Poverty speaks for itself; it is not a manifestation of relationship with someone else's welfare.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 29th, 2020, 9:16 am By 'manifestation', I mean that the poverty is just the visible or outward expression of the inequality. In other words, it's a form that the economic inequality takes, and it's how we recognize that it exists. I'm not arguing that poverty is 'due to' inequality, i.e. caused or made worse by it - that would be a whole separate argument in itself.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
"Greed" --- another of the "seven deadly sins" --- is a problematic word. Traditionally it denotes an unfair accumulation of wealth, at the expense of others equally entitled to or deserving of it. That is the case with the greedy chimps in your example. But in modern political contexts it is usually used to denote any effort to improve one's welfare if it would improve it beyond that of one's "fellows," which is taken to include everyone else in the society. That condemnation assumes that everyone in the society is equally entitled to wealth, and that one has some duty to share any "excess" wealth one acquires with one's "fellows" (so defined). But there is no such entitlement, nor any moral basis for that assumed duty.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 29th, 2020, 10:14 am
It's interesting that you mention that primates exhibit this behavior. One of Jane Goodall's experiments with the chimps she was observing, which made a strong impression on me, was to place a large pile of bananas, more than any chimp could eat, into an area where the chimps would find it. What this seemed to trigger what that the stronger members of the tribe, who would typically cooperate with the rest of the tribe and share food, would discover the wealth of bananas, seize them for themselves and defend them from the other members of their own tribe if they tried to take any. What is striking to me is that the introduction of a surplus into the tribe would be the occasion of the advent of both envy and greed in the animals, on the part of the weaker and stronger members of the tribe, respectively. It seems to me that envy and greed are in a sense a mirror image of each other.
This is a generalization which of course, like most, has some truth to it but is not universally so. In light of what I said above, it might be interesting to note that so-called 'lefties' often make a mirror-image generalization about conservatives - that instead of condemning greed, they in their turn make pretexts for justifying it as a means to economic gain for all.
Most people take into account the welfare of certain other people before acting, such as their families, friends, colleagues, etc. But not the welfare of everyone else who happen to co-occupy the territory they occupy. Those who condemn "greed" in this sense labor under the organic fallacy, and expect members of civilized societies to behave like members of kinship-based tribes.
There is a corresponding difference between envy and resentment over unfairness. The chimps may simply resent that the stronger animals have seized the fruit which, as they see it, the keepers have given to all of them. To see whether they are envious you'd need to see how the other animals react to a stash of bananas one of the animals has gathered by his own efforts.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
OK, you're still not understanding what I'm saying and maybe the word 'manifestation' is causing confusion. Let me try putting it in simpler terms: You can observe an inequality in that one person has more than another but both have enough to meet their basic needs (similar to how you described inequality in nature, e.g. some trees grow taller than others). Or you can observe an inequality where one person has more than they need but another lives in poverty. Most people I know who oppose 'inequality', when questioned, would not actually find the inequality in the first situation problematic or in need of correction, but in the second would consider it unjust and its elimination to be a legitimate goal of government.GE Morton wrote: ↑June 29th, 2020, 11:33 amOh, I think we can recognize poverty without knowing a thing about how well off anyone else is. If I come across a shanty in Appalachia without a source of heat, plumbing, or running water, with no food in the pantry and occupied by sickly adults and malnourished children, I can see they are in poverty, without knowing anything about how many millionaires there are in New York. Poverty speaks for itself; it is not a manifestation of relationship with someone else's welfare.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 29th, 2020, 9:16 am By 'manifestation', I mean that the poverty is just the visible or outward expression of the inequality. In other words, it's a form that the economic inequality takes, and it's how we recognize that it exists. I'm not arguing that poverty is 'due to' inequality, i.e. caused or made worse by it - that would be a whole separate argument in itself.
So my only point in the context of what I said before is that the so-called argument against 'inequality' is not in most people's minds a desire to make everyone equal. It's not really about inequality as much as it's a reaction to suffering. I'm not taking any policy position here, just trying to point out an inconsistency in the over-generalized use of the word 'inequality'.
— Epictetus
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Minimum Wage – Markets and Morals
Still working on that moral theory. I haven't forgotten.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023