That’s simply not true. The baker’s agenda is to earn a living and the buyers agenda is to get some good bread and save the time and effort it would take them to make it themselves.
Or - the bakers agenda is to make a profit from the bread he sells, the buyers agenda is not to be hungry and buys bread rather than bake it themselves because it would cost them more to bake it themselves.
But of course it is. If the bread and the time and effort saved was not worth more to the buyer than the money they would keep the money and make the bread themselves. Everyone knows this instinctively. If you asked me to trade cars with you the only way I would do it is if your car was worth more to me than my car, and vice versa.
You can’t speak of food and cars in the same context. You can’t eat a car. Well, maybe you could.
When two people trade cars they can negotiate. They buyer of the bread cannot negotiate the price, except in the instance of market which is a fairer way to trade because both parties have greater equality of bargaining power. Now supermarkets can set whatever price they want for bread and it is a bare essential, people pay it. That does not mean they think it is worth what they pay for it.
What is a business? Businesses don’t accumulate anything. A business can’t accumulate wealth any more than my computer monitor can. Only people can create and accumulate wealth. Most businesses work on very small profit margins. That’s why the majority of small businesses go out of business within the first year.
OK - people go into business for the purpose of accumulating wealth. Is that better?
Would you prefer I use gold and diamonds? You know I wasn’t comparing any person’s value to meat and vegetables or anything else. I was making an analogy to show that the product the worker is selling (their labor) is no different from other products businesses use.
I know you were. I was being sarcastic. Point taken.
I said you don’t understand wealth creation, but that people instinctively understand the effect prices have on behavior.
Given I’m poor I wouldn’t profess to be an authority on wealth creation. I do however understand principles, and can identify principles that conflict.
A worker should approve of this policy too because it provides a steady stream of jobs, jobs that allow people to build skills and a work ethic which will allow them to get better jobs later.
Mmmm.
I sense a subtle form of paternalism creeping in there. The workers should accept this because people with greater bargaining power know what is in their best interests better than they do?
I do want to make a point about policies to combat poverty. There is probably no law on the books today that has done more to keep more people in poverty than minimum wage laws with most of the harm being done to minorities. When it comes to questions like these we should pay more attention to the results and less to the intentions. I imagine most people who support minimum wage laws do it with good intentions. What are the results? The black youth unemployment rate here in the states is 393% higher than the national unemployment rate. Why? African Americans are far more likely to come from broken homes and failing schools. They enter the workforce at a disadvantage. The only weapon they have to fight against those who are better educated and generally more qualified is the fact that they could work for less money. But the government has taken that weapon from them.
I don’t understand this. Are the educated and more qualified competing for the same jobs as African Americans who are disadvantaged? I see your point as that is the case here. I must admit, I derive a great deal of mirth from job advertisements I see in my part of the world. For instance -
School caretaker, (janitor) must have GCSE Maths and English and three other GCSE’s.
Cleaner wanted for public toilets at sea-front - must have two years experience and a working knowledge of chemicals.
Deli assistant required - must have complete recognized health and safety training and possess a certificate in food hygiene. (Takes two years to get that certificate)
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
The problem is if you pay people less all the university graduates will be unemployed. They are working in minimum wage jobs not because they want to, but because it is the only work available to them.
I recently applied for a job as a receptionist in a law firm. I was contacted by phone and in the course of the conversation, they said they would not offer me an interview because they would want me to stay beyond a year, and I might leave after a year for a better job.
