From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:19:58 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul27.211327.29535@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.002340.6564@NOC.Vitalink.COM> rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>>> (Frank:)I have argued that the same work done by different people should be paid 
>>> the same.
>>
>>Yes, and you've done so poorly.   About five of us have blasted you to
>>pieces on this.  Does your news server only work in the outgoing direction?
>
>I'm afraid the blasting has had little effect. Adam Smith also operated
>on the principle that free markets  generally resulted in the paying
>of equal work equally.

Yes, free markets tend toward this. But, do you really expect us to
believe that free markets operate, unimpeded, across national borders,
for example? The wage inequalities that remain in a market reflect
the distortions in the market (for example, trade restriction, quotas,
taxes...).

>
>>This is not just every-day, run-of-the-mill economic illiteracy.  This is
>>monumental, flying-flaming, WORLD-CLASS utter stupidity!   I'm boggled
>>that _anyone_ could be so ASTOUNDINGLY wrong about something so simple.
>
>My goodness, but those capitalizations and underlines and explanation marks
>are effective in convincing me of your position.
>
>>> If you can't define equal work, or its worth, then why do you claim
>>> that a corporate hack has the "right" to disproportionate wages 
>>
>>Nobody said anybody has a "right" to any particular wage (at least nobody
>>with any credibility has said so;  only _you_ have.)
>
>That of course is why "right" was in quotation marks. It referred to the claim
>by most of the libertarian elements here that capitalists somehow worked
>harder than workers, thus justifying their incredibley well-earned salaries.
>If you don't think this has been said, I suggest you skim backwards a few
>miles of postings.

Capitalist as opposed to worker? Oh, you mean investor. You know (or do
you?), whoever puts up money on which a company can operate. Do they
only "deserve" to get a factory worker's salary, even if they put up
hundreds of millions?

>
>>A corporate hack has the same right as anyone else -- to work for any wage
>>mutually agreeable to both the employee and the employer.
>>
>>BTW, define "disproportionate wages".
>
> It is a relative term. But let me give an example: A Mexican labourer
>works 8-12 hours a day/50c an hour  and lives in a slum. His corporate overlord
>may earn millions a year in an air-conditioned office and never touch
>the production process in his entire lifetime.
>Most people think that reflects disproportionate wages (not on this
>newsgroup perhaps, but most people in the real world.)

Now let's deal with corporate presidents as opposed to laborers. Mr.
(or Ms.) President does not necessarily work *harder*, but that's not
the point. One can work quite hard and not get anywhere. On the other
hand, one can accomplish seeming miracles with the right knowledge and
the right skills. That corporate "overlord", as you call him, probably
could do the laborer's job, but the laborer would be at a loss in the
CEO position. Assuming the CEO actually *runs* a company that can
afford to pay him millions a year, he knows and does a thousand and one
different things that are quite beyond the understanding of most people
just to keep the company together and paying everyone, including the
Mexican laborer.

>
>>> Cost of living is the result of wages, not the cause of them.
>>
>>Not as stunningly ignorant as the one above, but still pretty impressive
>>in its wrongness.
>>
>>Care to explain it?   (This should be good for some giggles...) 
>
>Are you saying you don't understand it and that therefore it needs explaining
>or that because you don't understand it, it is defined as unexplainable ?
>"Stunningly" ignorant? Fascinating...

Are you one of those people who confuse value and price? Or do you
assert that they are in fact one and the same? Anyone with half a brain
could come up with a counterexample of this. That's why your statement
about cost of living and wages seemed stunningly ignorant.

.sig