Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.... Markets for minimum wage labor tend to be non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it type arrangements wherein the employer has all the power and the applicant has none. This is the opposite of a fair market.
I absolutely do not understand your point. The employer makes a pay offer. The employee can take it or not. If the employers offers are too low they will not be able to hire or at least not be able to hire reliable employees. It seems to me the transaction is entirely equal.
Too many people seem to think that whatever the employer wants to pay is the way it should or will be. That is nonsense regardless of the job level. I quit my last job because the pay was insufficient. When I accepted the job 15 years earlier, the pay was acceptable. Over time inflation continued, my performance improved and the demands of the job also increased. The pay had not kept up. After I left my employer was faced with hiring and quickly learned about fair market value.
I have applied for lots of jobs over my career. I have walked away if I did not like the nature of the job, the work environment or the pay. Pay has always been a give and take negotiation. If the employers give does not match my idea of take, then I look elsewhere.
I'll try one more time. In real estate markets as a different example, the list price for a unit is the start point for negotiations between what are presumed to be willing buyers and a willing seller. In many low-wage labor markets, list price is already the final price because no one but the employer has any power or input into the process at all. This is not remotely a fair market situation.
I'll try one more time. In real estate markets as a different example, the list price for a unit is the start point for negotiations between what are presumed to be willing buyers and a willing seller. In many low-wage labor markets, list price is already the final price because no one but the employer has any power or input into the process at all. This is not remotely a fair market situation.
Again, I do not get this idea. If the wage is too low, the jobs will not be filled. The employee is not being forced to take the job. If they have suitable skills and other employers are willing to hire them at a higher rate, why would they take the job? If they do not have skills and no one is willing to hire them for more money, then they are not underpaid. In fact they might be overpaid. If the employer is forced to pay MW and that is higher than pay based on supply and demand, then the employer loses. The employer might decide to hire anyway, but that is not a fair market situation. The employer has already lost and has no power to negotiate.
Again, I do not get this idea. If the wage is too low, the jobs will not be filled. The employee is not being forced to take the job.
Of course they are. How distant from reality can one actually be? Even welfare programs have work requirements, and the option of starving in the streets is not an economically viable one for any human being. Terms and conditions of employment for low-wage labor are DICTATED, not NEGOTIATED. No Fair Market works in that way. This is indeed the opposite of the way in which Fair Markets work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny
If they have suitable skills and other employers are willing to hire them at a higher rate, why would they take the job? If they do not have skills and no one is willing to hire them for more money, then they are not underpaid.
Do you not understand what a commodity is? Even after it has been explained repeatedly, do you not understand what Fair Market Value would require?
Fair market value is a price agreed upon by buyer and seller. Wages work the same way. The employer and employee both accept the wage. Neither may like it but it is set by the supply and demand. Workers with skills that are not in demand are not going to be paid much. In fact they may not be able to get any job at any level of pay.
If there is no MW requirement, then wages would float to a level that was fair market.
It might make sense to maintain MW levels but that is a separate political decision that has nothing to do with fair market value. Fair market value for wages are not set by poverty levels or the ability to raise a family on those wages. They are set by the market. MW levels are not fair market, are not set by supply and demand and are certainly not set or in the favor of employers. They are take it or leave it only because the employer is already forced to pay more than FMV.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,577 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
I'll try one more time. In real estate markets as a different example, the list price for a unit is the start point for negotiations between what are presumed to be willing buyers and a willing seller. In many low-wage labor markets, list price is already the final price because no one but the employer has any power or input into the process at all. This is not remotely a fair market situation.
It is the same, when you consider that the seller may at some point stop negotiating and the buyer may have to rent if they cannot afford what is available.
MW, minimum skills isn't meant to raise a family on. 97.3% of America, fortunately, makes more than MW as they properly advanced their skills.
But the good news is for the 2.7% at MW 128 more hours exist each week, so plenty of time for 2nd jobs.
Who says that, by what authority? Who does define what "minimum skills" are and how? Sorry, what you say it is so arbitrary and self serving with heavy emphasis on circular logic.
Again, I do not get this idea. If the wage is too low, the jobs will not be filled. The employee is not being forced to take the job. If they have suitable skills and other employers are willing to hire them at a higher rate, why would they take the job? If they do not have skills and no one is willing to hire them for more money, then they are not underpaid. In fact they might be overpaid. If the employer is forced to pay MW and that is higher than pay based on supply and demand, then the employer loses. The employer might decide to hire anyway, but that is not a fair market situation. The employer has already lost and has no power to negotiate.
Employers do not do direct forcing of labor (for time being, things were different) because universal system of wage slavery does the dirty job for now.
Employers do not do direct forcing of labor (for time being, things were different) because universal system of wage slavery does the dirty job for now.
What is that supposed to mean?
No one is forced to take any wage. As opposed to employers who are forced to pay a MW that is above the FMV.
Fair market value is a price agreed upon by buyer and seller. Wages work the same way. The employer and employee both accept the wage. Neither may like it but it is set by the supply and demand. Workers with skills that are not in demand are not going to be paid much. In fact they may not be able to get any job at any level of pay.
This is true. But if there is an abundance of low skilled labor (something the "fair market" will always produce), then the worker's choices are either a very crappy job at subsistence pay (take it or leave it), or starve. Not really a negotiating position at all. More like exploitation.
The "fair market" will also not provide any benefits like education, welfare, healthcare, etc. So the worker who manages to barely survive with a job (so long as he stays healthy), has no opportunity to improve his position. This is the situation in many poor countries. And apparently many people in this wealthy country believe that emulating that situation would be a good idea!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
