I don't believe I did use "strawmen"; rather, I described, in the first place, a general tendency with which you seemingly voluntary to stand as a representative of, and in the second, your line of argument as I understood it. If you take legitimate issue with these characterisations, you should be able to refute them with ease.
You haven't actually renounced your belief in Just Price or Market Value, so until then, it's not a mischaracterization.
That is untrue.You, my good sir, are a world-class salsa dancer and enjoy wearing womens panties every other Thursday because the silky-smooth lace makes you feel sexy. You haven't actually renounced that statement, so until then it is not a mischaracterization.
But that's not a belief in market value at all. If you believe in market value, the market value is what they are paid. They are able to receive their wages, and therefor that is the market value of their wages. If you believe otherwise, you can try offering them less for their services, and see if they sell them.
Yes it does. If you believe people deserve wages, especially for things that have nothing to do with their economic output, then you are giving up on the concept of market value.
Could you over-exaggerate a little more, please? I have not yet received my quota of the week for dealing with irrational people making outlandish claims on the internet.
Dealwithit.jpegI did just the same, but Traitorfish continued heaping it on, leaping from one subject to the next. I love how you’re characterizing two posts on one page where I am directly refuting his claims as “whining for two pages.”
So the market is an entirely fictitious invention? It is a fantasy land entirely abstracted from the actual market, where goods are bought and sold.
No. Perhaps without the unions they would have gone on to new employment as sky-pirates and cause such terrors to cities vulnerable to their daring zeppelin raids, that they would be offered their old jobs but with the salaries of Jillionares. But from the perspective of the market, that's irrelevant.
They've adapted to the market, oh well.
Labor is a service.
It can. It doesn't necessarily, and it doesn't entitle someone to it, if the market doesn't find value in it.
That explains their low income.
If it is not debatable, why are you objecting that these people make more money then those with a higher education.
No, only a member of the Union can.
Shouldn't we let the market decide that?
Superior abilities at co-cooperatively negotiating contracts, in order to get exclusivity deals. It's a common practice in the free market.
I find it odd that the labor union is "artificial". I didn't realize that automobile factories were a form of fungus, existing in nature without the intervention of man.
You, my good sir, are a world-class salsa dancer and enjoy wearing womens panties every other Thursday because the silky-smooth lace makes you feel sexy. You haven't actually renounced that statement, so until then it is not a mischaracterization.
I believe in market value, but factory worker rates are artificially high because of the unions, thus bypassing the market value belief structure. Believing that people with education deserve higher wages than the uneducated has nothing to do with Just Price.
Wait, I'm confused; the wages of an individual worker is determined by the exchange value of the product of their labour, but a change in the supply of labour can increase or decrease their wages without correspondingly increasing or decreasing the exchange value of the product of their labour? How does that follow?
So fine. Their wages are low. What's the complaint?
Hey, at least I appeal to pleasant fantasy worlds to make my arguments.Sure, were all millionaires lying in wait.
Well of course they've changed the market. That's the nature of the market. A market that does not change is no market. You can complain that they've changed the market just by showing up to work, regardless of what they paid, and that the company changed the market by hiring them, and so on.
So your argument is that people should not be paid more then people, who can, in certain circumstances be more productive then they are? How can anyone's wage ever be determined then? Aren't those people with higher degrees also making an unfair wage because people without any education at all can be more economically productive then them?
If it wasn't, and they could get someone to do it cheaper, they would. It always seems odd to me that the people who argue for the free market the most have the littlest faith in it to do what it's supposed to without outside intervention.
Because the market has decided as such.
But McDonald's employees have failed to take advantage of their assets.
Well that doesn't seem unfair to you?
You know, if you had a brain, you'd know what a strawman is. Now, you've claimed it's NOT DEBATABLE that someone with a higher degree commands a higher wage then someone who doesn't. If that is true, then it is NOT DEBATABLE that someone with a high degree commands a higher wage then someone who doesn't and works in an automobile plant, and you have nothing to complain about. If it IS DEBATABLE that these people command a higher wage then those who have higher education, then it IS very easily debatable that someone with a higher degree commands a higher wage.
No. The market has decided that's a pre-requisite to do the work. If you're going to say that the market should not decide who can be employed in a job, well, then you can try moving to Cuba or something.
Disband the corporations. Disband land ownership. Disband right to contract. Disband the competition. Disband the consumer. Disband rent costs. Disband whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that as soon as you do that, you are interfering with the market.
Exclusivity deals are unique to unions? Wow, you know, maybe you do know how much auto-workers make in a fantasy world, because you are living in one.
And the market doesn't require people to justify their economic/societal worth. Like I said, if you want a society that fixes wages in response to your societal worth, those are scarce these days, but you can try Cuba or the DPRK.
And I find your tendency to make statements and hope no one puts them in context and underlies the constant contradictions to be odd.
But I'll run with your definition. If Unions are simulated, what's the complaint here? I don't complain that simulated Demomen are paid more then simulated Soldiers. So why are you upset about simulated unions? If your complaint is that they are forced, contrived and lack spontaneity perhaps you could provide method acting lessons to make them more lively.
Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. Don't make the argument personal.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
fyi: unions aren't a competitive, market force. They are labor cartels that collect additional wages and benefits by restricting the supply of labor; that they aren't particularly beneficial in their present incarnation is clear by the rapid death of private-sector union representation. In general, unions only continue to survive because they are granted privileges by legislators -- they are exempt from antitrust laws; they don't pay taxes; by law, companies have to negotiate with unions "in good faith." etc.
Couldn't you say much the same thing of limited liability companies?
Are rates artificially distorted downward when the owners of a business are collectively represented?
