> And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier.
Yes, long standing agreements can provide stability for both workers and employers. However, the ability to renegotiate and advocate for fair wages periodically is essential, especially in dynamic economic environments where factors like inflation, cost of living, and company profits may change over time. Workers seeking better conditions and wages is not an unreasonable expectation, as their contributions contribute to a company's growth and success.
> While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more?
The point is not about devaluing individuals or considering certain people as worth less than others. It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions.
> After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear?
It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation. The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society. People should not be devalued or discarded based on their circumstances, but rather, they should be provided with opportunities and support to enhance their skills and contribute meaningfully to the workforce.
The goal is to ensure that all individuals have access to fair opportunities and can be compensated appropriately for their work, regardless of their background or circumstances. Empowering workers to improve their skills and capabilities benefits not only them but also society as a whole. By promoting fairness and addressing economic disparities, we can create a more inclusive and equitable labor market that benefits everyone.
> It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions.
It is never difficult to negotiate a fair wage. Tricking someone into paying an unfair wage, where you see greater value than you give back in return, is a lot harder. But that questions: Have you actually tricked them, or was the agreement fair all along? The reality is that any offer that is considered unfair, by either side, is rejected and a transaction never takes place. When an agreement is made, it is always considered fair. You, fundamentally, cannot work for someone for an unfair wage.
That is, assuming involved parties are holding true to the agreement made. If someone is not holding up their end of the bargain then that would be unfair, but that also introduces debt...
> It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation.
There is no importance to that statement at all. It is a true statement, but it doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.
> The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society.
The perception of scarcity is what drives the perceived value of human labour. If I think I can put out a job ad and see a thousand great people line up for a chance at the job, I'm not going to find much value in the work. If I think there is only one person in the world who can suitably do the job, and every other company wants to hire them too, I know it is going to take one hell of an offer to compel them in my direction.
Which brings us back to the first comment in this thread (the one before my first). That is exactly what they stated. If you think they mischaracterized the state of the world, you should take it up with them. These circles you keep us running around in are pointless.
Ah, the same old rhetoric of denying economic disparities and systemic challenges that clearly impact workers bargaining power. You seem so eager to downplay the struggles faced by certain individuals, but let's not pretend negotiating a fair wage is a walk in the park.
Sure, you keep harping on about not tricking someone into accepting an unfair wage, but the reality is far from your idealistic view. Many workers, especially those facing economic vulnerabilities, have no choice but to accept whatever is offered, even if it falls short of fair compensation. And don't give me that "transaction never takes place" nonsense, exploitative agreements happen all the time, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. And don't use words like NEVER and FUNDAMENTALLY, unless you think that labor relation between slave and master in slavery period was a fair transaction, do you?
As for your dismissive attitude towards the importance of the labor market's representation of resource allocation, it just shows your lack of understanding. While it might not fit neatly into your narrow worldview, it's crucial to recognize the market's influence on labor value and the allocation of resources. Don't believe me? Here, educate yourself by reading these two reports from OECD and ILO with data and sources to research:
Things like economic disparities and systemic challenges in context of labor that I mentioned so many times and that you dismissed are discussed there and supported by data.
And don't even get me started on your skewed perception of scarcity. Yes, supply and demand play a role, but that doesn't negate the fact that unfair practices can still arise, leaving workers struggling while companies rake in massive profits. But I guess it's too much for you to grasp that concept.
You keep going in circles, pointing fingers at the initial comment as if it's some holy truth. Well, newsflash: discussions evolve, and we're addressing a broader issue here. If you can't keep up and insist on your one-track mind, then by all means, spare us your pointless circles and let those who are genuinely interested in understanding the complexities have a meaningful conversation.
Yes, long standing agreements can provide stability for both workers and employers. However, the ability to renegotiate and advocate for fair wages periodically is essential, especially in dynamic economic environments where factors like inflation, cost of living, and company profits may change over time. Workers seeking better conditions and wages is not an unreasonable expectation, as their contributions contribute to a company's growth and success.
> While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more?
The point is not about devaluing individuals or considering certain people as worth less than others. It's about acknowledging that economic disparities and systemic challenges can limit the bargaining power of certain individuals, making it difficult for them to negotiate for fair wages and better working conditions.
> After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear?
It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation. The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society. People should not be devalued or discarded based on their circumstances, but rather, they should be provided with opportunities and support to enhance their skills and contribute meaningfully to the workforce.
The goal is to ensure that all individuals have access to fair opportunities and can be compensated appropriately for their work, regardless of their background or circumstances. Empowering workers to improve their skills and capabilities benefits not only them but also society as a whole. By promoting fairness and addressing economic disparities, we can create a more inclusive and equitable labor market that benefits everyone.