FMF: You don't believe that abject poverty can be a coercive 'market force'?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, it is.

So how do you approach the "violence of poverty", as someone once called it ~ or, if you don't like that, "the coercive 'market force' of poverty" ~ as a Christian looking at the free market?

Originally posted by FMF
They have the "choice" between no wages at all and infrahuman wages ~ meaning wages that don't cover even just the basic minimal costs of survival.

Getting back to my point, it is all about what people are willing to spend
and earn. If you are the lone employer you are going to set the wages,
that is true. If you are the lone person that can get the job done that
has to be done, you will make a lot of money. (think sports)

If you are asking me who has the upper hand in a place where no one is
working and someone shows up willing to pay to have things done, than
I'll say the company or employer will have the upper hand. If another
shows up and offers more, well that is when things will get competitive
with the wages.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay

Getting back to my point, it is all about what people are willing to spend
and earn. If you are the lone employer you are going to set the wages,
that is true. If you are the lone person that can get the job done that
has to be done, you will make a lot of money. (think sports)

If you are asking me who has the upper hand in a place where no one is
working and someone shows up willing to pay to have things done, than
I'll say the company or employer will have the upper hand. If another
shows up and offers more, well that is when things will get competitive
with the wages.

I have been following your point, Kelly.

What about the points I have been making in response to your point?

Originally posted by FMF
So how do you approach the "violence of poverty", as someone once called it ~ or, if you don't like that, "the coercive 'market force' of poverty" ~ as a Christian looking at the free market?

Unless you can show me people being forced to do something against
their will they have entered into an agreement. If there is some type of
collusion among employers that behind everyone's back they conspire to
keep wages lower, that isn't a level playing field, and we are now again
changing the topic to trickery and cheats.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you define "infrahuman wages"?

Not enough to support the basics of everyday life.

Leads to people being financial burdens on their relatives, not enough money for educating children, malnutrition, the "shortfall' being outsourced to churches, charities, the use of loan sharks, social diseases like crime, prostitution, suicide etc.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Getting back to my point, it is all about what people are willing to spend
and earn. If you are the lone employer you are going to set the wages,
that is true. If you are the lone person that can get the job done that
has to be done, you will make a lot of money. (think sports)

If you are asking me who has the upper hand in a place where no one is
work ...[text shortened]... lowing your point, Kelly.

What about the points I have been making in response to your point?

I'm trying to answer you, I'm also trying to understand you too. You
keep going on about people being paid subhuman wages to put it in
terms I believe your saying.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Unless you can show me people being forced to do something against
their will they have entered into an agreement. If there is some type of
collusion among employers that behind everyone's back they conspire to
keep wages lower, that isn't a level playing field, and we are now again
changing the topic to trickery and cheats.

I have given you a scenario without "trickery and cheats". I have given you a scenario without "collusion among employers" or "conspiracy". You can tell me about your opinion of the scenario I have given you:

Someone's income/profit is very large due in no small part to the fact that he is paying infra-human wages to the people he employs ~ people who basically have no choice to accept such low pay because they live in complete poverty?

What bearing does your spiritual mind map have upon your viewpoint regarding this kind of scenario and does it diverge at all from your free market principles?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You keep going on about people being paid subhuman wages...

Is there anything wrong with paying infrahuman wages in a free market system on a "level playing field" if one can do so, mathematically speaking?

Originally posted by FMF
Not enough to support the basics of everyday life.

Leads to people being financial burdens on their relatives, not enough money for educating children, malnutrition, the "shortfall' being outsourced to churches, charities, the use of loan sharks, social diseases like crime, prostitution, suicide etc.

If I offer you a job and it doesn't meet all your needs, you either need
to get another job inaddition too, or find other work.

Just because you are working for someone does that mean that someone
now has to make sure all your needs are met. If you cannot meet your
needs with a job, get a 2nd or a different one.

I worked two jobs while I was going to school, I had no life for awhile,
but it put me in a place where my family and I are better off. Just
because someone is poor now does not mean they will always be! Life
isn't that static, and just because someone is well off does not mean they
will always be.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Unless you can show me people being forced to do something against
their will they have entered into an agreement.

But you just agreed with me on the previous page that you believe abject poverty can be a coercive 'market force'.

Originally posted by FMF
Is there anything wrong with paying infrahuman wages in a free market system on a "level playing field" if one can do so, mathematically speaking?

No, not at all.
If I offer and you accept we have an agreement. If I put a gun to your
head and say do this, or else that isn't an agreement it is force.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I offer you a job and it doesn't meet all your needs, you either need
to get another job inaddition too, or find other work.

What happens if they are working 70 hours a week for you and what you pay them only meets 70% of their requirements in terms of clean water, nutrition and shelter?

Originally posted by FMF
But you just agreed with me on the previous page that you believe abject poverty can be a coercive 'market force'.

Yes, and a worker shortage in an area that has a lot of work that needs
done will favor the workers too. Skilled labor is sometimes very hard to
come by, and if the need is there, they will be paid a lot of money.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, not at all.
If I offer and you accept we have an agreement. If I put a gun to your
head and say do this, or else that isn't an agreement it is force.

You have just agreed that "poverty can be a coercive 'market force'". We don't need to discuss guns.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, and a worker shortage in an area that has a lot of work that needs
done will favor the workers too. Skilled labor is sometimes very hard to
come by, and if the need is there, they will be paid a lot of money.

Coming up with a scenario where there is less of a problem hardly addresses the scenario I have asked you to look at.