BigBallinStalin wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:The free market establishes prices for salable, marketable goods. It does not set a price for human beings.
Well, humans set their own prices on the projected worth of an individual--e.g. during worker compensation cases. So... you're wrong in this sense.
No, that is an entirely different standard and not necessarily an accurate one. It IS set by industry. An appropriate baseline wage is set by society. Some companies can and will try to subvert any standard/law, but that doesn't mean the standard is nonexistent.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with because it depends on what exactly you mean by "It does not set a price for human beings." If by "price for human beings," you mean "the value of a human to another," then sure, the market sets these. Even if practices vary by industry, these industries provide different protocols which can allow for different prices. Nevertheless, they are still within the Market. Therefore, the market sets a price for humans beings. And it need not be only industries doing this, right? Individuals can resolve such issues outside of court--especially if they're friends, so market prices "for" human beings emerge in all sorts of contexts.
OK, I did use lazy wording. The markets can set the value for human being's labor, but not the human beings themselves. The court rulings to which you refer are only incredibly flawed approximations of certain readily measured practicalities.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure what "standard" you're referring to. If it's the "appropriate baseline wage set by society," then that's not really accurate because who exactly is "Society"? Many people have interposed their own standard with "society's standard," and we can see how misleading this can be.
Society is rather a collection of individuals, who--within 'the Market/Economy'--each buy and sell their labor at different prices in various markets related to various tasks of different values. Furthermore, these factors and relationships change over time. Due to the wide variety of those outcomes, there cannot be a "baseline wage," for there are many "baselines" (or rather, prices). Also, in this aspect, the market sets prices for human beings.
Industry differences, the work being done don't matter unless they change what it takes someone to live. Regional differences might matter, but I would say that is up to regional governments, not the federal government to deal with. (There might be some debate on whether the absolute lowest areas to live in should set the standard, but I am not debating any specific estimate, just the principles to be used to determine the estimate).
BigBallinStalin wrote:Some people of society participate through voting or directly by politicking in Government, which is distinct from Society. It's a totally different group with a different process--compared to Society and the Market.
Not really relevant, except that many rules are currently dictated by certain big business' and have very little to do with what is truly good for society or even business as a whole.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, sellers of labor (who are within the market) meet with buyers of labor. Their exchanges creates prices for the perceived value of the good offered (work + more). So, if one wished to estimate the value of their human capital, then in this sense, sure the market establishes prices for human beings.
Once you get above the minimum, sure. However, there are basic needs that must be met for humans. Fulfilling those needs represents a minimum price for human labor, just like the materials and operation costs of machinery represent the minimum cost of the machine. The market does set that cost, by setting prices for food, housing and such.
You can opt for other machinery, different processes or to just no do business, but you cannot "just decide" to pay less unless the other factors, the real market, allows. You cannot just decide to pay less for a worker any more than you can just decide to pay less for fuel. When you try, it usually winds up involving some kind of illegality.
Well, what
exactly is that minimum? And is it the same for all individuals? (rhetorical questions). I agree that there are 'basic needs', but they should be met
by humans and for humans, but not from those creatures of government since that is the way of Advanced Barbarism (new face, same tactics).
lol... "Advanced Barbarism??"
No, government is just the regulatory entity. Folks are going to fight over what the standard is, should be. The point is that it needs to be based on what it takes for a basic worker to live, not just on whatever any business owner decides they wish to pay. And yes, it does have to be mandated, for the same reason safety rules and antitrust rules have to be made. While most people want to do what is best, want to (in this case) pay people what they need, they will get out-competed by business owners who could care less.. no matter how harmful it is to society as a whole.
BigBallinStalin wrote:And "'needs' which people must have" is a dubious phrase. Everyone wants different goods at different degrees of urgency, but anyone is willing to forsake some amount of 'needed' goods in exchange for a different amount of 'needed' goods. Since the goods "one must have" are actually exchanged for other goods which one "must have," then it becomes apparent that there are no 'needed' goods--in the absolute sense. Instead, these goods are relative in value to other bundles of goods, and these 'needed' goods differ in amount, as each individual sees fit. There are only goods of various degrees of value, urgency, and what not which all differ for each individual.
Some women forgo lunches to have money to do their nails, sure. Some people skip rent to buy beer or drugs. Some people may need very little for food because "uncle Joe" owns a farm and gives them what they need. Those are irrelevancies. No national standard is going to be completely accurate for every person. The basic point I make, have made all along is not that a minimum wage increase will fix every ill, or ensure that everyone is paid reasonably in their view, its that the current wage is so well below what it takes almost everyone to live that it is a big drag on our economy and needs to be raised. It represents a vast, unaccounted tax subsidy for many very profitable businesses. (which is not to say that all businesses paying minimum are very profitable)
BigBallinStalin wrote: For clarification: the "minimum price" is called a "fixed cost"--which can vary over time, but refers to the price of 'keeping something or someone running',
As we can see, the "minimum"/fixed cost varies, so there is no minimum
that is the same for all individuals. And goods which people "must" have is meaningless since value is relative.
Much easier than setting a value for a human
No, seriously, the point that is relevant is how much regional differences should be taken into account. If people in Mississippi are making a LOT less than people in NY, then how harmful is it to us as a nation? There is a lot involved in that debate and I am not really prepared to get into it. I acknowledge that setting the minimum at the wage allowing people in, say, my area to rent and eat might be too low overall, but I think it is a decent place to start. And, I don't think that the national minimum should be set at the level necessary to maintain people in the most expensive regions, either. In fact, I am not really sure a minimum wage is really the most effective means of dealing with this in place like NY and SF. Those places have very inflated real estate costs, which tend to override everything. A better approach might be to set aside or plan for housing in some manner --but I mean a new model, not just the standard "rent control" or even traditional subsidized housing models. At any rate, how to deal with low incomes in the most expensive regions is a different question than setting the minimum wage for our nation.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If markets were allowed to operate for body organs, then you'd have prices emerge for human parts. So, in this sense, you're incorrect.
Not in the most important sense, no. Humans are worth far more than their organs in the same way a working machine is worth more than the scrap that creates it. Since humans never go "obsolete", in the way a machine might (even if a particular skill set becomes obsolete a human can, at least theoretically retrain and likely has other duties, such as being a parent, etc.). All that is even without any moral ideas involved Morality does matter, though.
Humans can definitely become obsolete since their human capital (knowledge, skills, etc.) can change in value--just as capital does. It's up to them and hopefully with the charity or trade from others to 'update', thus increase their value to others, or to find those are willing to trade for their labor--at the original price or perhaps a lower or maybe even higher price (it depends).
That is a value of their labor, also, humans are adaptable and can change in ways machines cannot. That means that any such value can be changed if the outside situation warrants. What doesn't change is that people need to eat, have shelter, etc. In today's society that takes money, and we get money through work.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Furthermore, neither time nor obsolescence is the only determinant of the value for a good--whether it be a machine or human labor. What matters in shaping value is one's opportunity cost, i.e. the value forsaken of some alternative offer.
For example, suppose Bob is a 60 year old man, who's okay with computers, but he's getting close to needing an update. The value of his labor per year is $40,000. Now, suppose there is another person, Laura, who is in dire need of a liver. She'll die within a week if she doesn't get one. In a market for livers, suppliers would have livers from recently deceased donors. Let's say she agrees to buy a liver at the price of $50,000--at one time. Her next best alternative is... who knows? A lesser quality liver at $40,000? No liver, thus death? It's up to the individual to make this comparison, which varies across individuals.
Obviously, the price of the liver is greater than an entire year's worth of Bob's labor. Therefore, human organs CAN be worth far more than their whole body. Organs have different uses other than scrap. Organs are rather like the replaceable parts of machines, which vary in quality, thus need not be scrap. Since the prices depend on the context, then one organ of a human can be worth more than the entire human, or not--it depends on people's perceived value of an exchange compared to their opportunity cost.
You can narrow anything down if you insist on limiting the factors you will consider enough. You start by talking about the value of Bob's employment, in a dubious way, given that just because he "needs an update" doesn't mean his value suddenly become nil.. or that he has no other talent that increase his value. You don't even account for any other attributes or factors, such as his value to his spouse and children, his value in volunteer organizations, etc, etc, etc. Per the rest, you hint at part of why human organ sales are not legal in the US, but your example has too many holes for me to even bother any further criticism of that bit. You can come up with some decent, fun arguments, but that was not one.
Earlier, sure, but not that last bit.
