weak response I respond to your points specifically and you fall back on mindless Marxist tropes.

Yeah see I think you're missing that value does not exist an economic bubble. Value is at least partially a power transaction. Unions lobby for minimum wage and the value of labor goes up, not for any market reason, but because power has been "paid" by the unions to make it so. Minimum wage employees aren't paid low wages simply because of the value of their labor, they're paid low wages because of the power imbalance between employer and employee (e.g. corporate lobbying for the benefit of the company, lack of unions, etc). Countries with sweatshop labor don't have less valuable labor, the workers lack even more power than we do.

Attributing value simply to supply and demand implies some sort of mathematical legitimacy. It's that way because that's how the system simply functions. That's not how the system functions though. Power transactions from both workers and employers act as leverage to alter how the system functions.

yeah I'm just stupid

That's why you can't form a coherent argument against anything I say

Maybe it's cause you don't worry about how you contradict yourself like you admitted earlier, hence you are undisciplined

Or maybe you're just wrong

you could try responding in your own words

Pretty sure I answered the points you just raised and you copped out

this has already basically been addressed.

Unions work to the extent they mobilize collective bargaining. Which makes cheap labor harder to get. So does minimum wage. All this is perfectly in line with what I've said this far.

how about the specific answers I gave to your specific questions

So based on this, let's say I come up with a robot that provides that labor. It costs 25 cents to make the robot. My competitor is willing the sell the company the same robot for 50 cents. Is it still worth a dollar?

Is the robot worth a dollar when my competitor will sell you the same robot for 50 cents

In both cases the value added is the same

But not necessarily the value of the employee?

wut

Minimum wage doesn't make cheap labor harder to get. Under a certain level it eliminates it. You're also ignoring the point. Unions through threat of strikes, or even violence, and companies through lobbying alter value based on non-market factors via power. If a corporation is increasing the value of whatever they're selling by having laws enacted or struck down that artificially inflate value then value is meaningless. All you're talking about is power. And power is not actually a synonym for money.

But he doesn’t get it so that can’t be true derp derp

Because the way it is is the only way it can be

I'm not ignoring anything

Unions and minimum wage affect wages by calling y it harder or impossible to find cheaper labor

That's perfectly in line with what I'm saying. You are worth whatever the labor pool you are competing with is willing to work for. How essential the labor you provide is means less than how hard it is to find someone to do the same job.

they're entitled to nothing

You get what you are worth paying for by an employer

Which is based on what your competition will work for

No.. Not really

But you guys are using the system we have to derive your labor theory of value

The problem is you aren't properly considering the value of the business. Which is worth a hell of a lot more than the simple overhead.

I'm willing to imagine people getting more

I'm not convinced by just saying you're entitled to it even when businesses don't need you if they are forced to pay more


Just sounds like baseless wishful thinking. Once again, you're entitled to nothing.

Heh maybe the theory exists but the value of your labor changes based on what the company you are working for can make from it... Which is dependent on the economic system

You guys keep throwing digs my way but I answer every single one of your points without backup and you don't return the favor

I'm not stupid I'm just not another brainwashed Marxist

You're entitled to what you agree to work for. Unionizing might help that rate. I've yet to say anything against unions.

The business owner only has domain cause they are the ones putting up all the capital, taking all the risk, etc. They're entitled to what the business makes minus overhead the same way they're responsible for any losses or debts they accrue.

Why? Why should I be entitled to get anything for any reason? Why aren't the capitalists entitled to enslave us? Why am I not entitled to more than what I'm getting now?

You're entitled to what you agree to work for because that is basically the amount of leverage you bring to the table. At any point if it isn't worth it you can leave. This is all really very simple

If you have a house you want to sell and you hire a guy to paint it for 2 Grand and he's happy with that rate, you're happy with that rate, and it ends up getting you an extra 15k when you sell the house, have you robbed him?

Why does leverage entitle you to anything? If you have leverage you don't need to be entitled to something, your leverage just gets it for you.

@ Batlord

That's sorta what I mean though as far as the job market goes, what you have coming to you is what you can force them to give you.

And btw you didn't answer my question. Surprise, surprise.

@ elph

My dad specifically negotiated contracts with home owners in just this fashion. Either answer the question or don't. It's getting a bit tiring answering all your questions just to have you dodge mine

That's not an answer.

I mean in this case "entitled" is a synonym for "deserving" which gives this issue a moral implication and not simply one of leverage.

Because I didn't really read it cause I didn't care.

so the guy should've paid him 15k instead?

then go **** yourself. Can't be bothered to take this seriously if you won't.

Okay.

So what should the home owner have paid him, iyo.

Please just answer and quit dodging.

How much did he pay his realtor

That's after he already paid the realtor. It's hypothetical you ****s.

I'll be amazed if anyone actually answers this easy question that is only the set up for my actual point.

I feel stupid (and contagious) for having read the last few pages of this mess.

The house painting example is spot on.

Wage Labourers and Independent Contractors are two very different beasts. Negotiations are a thing. They can happen even if you work a wage (provided you're working above entry level).

The value of the painter's labour (as an IC working an ad hoc job and not hired as a salaried employee) is how much they think their time and effort is worth. The subsequent sale value of the house is irrelevant to the painter unless they're only paid upon the sale of the house - which would be dumb, or maybe just happy.

Well I would argue for a fair cost split for all involved which would include the realtor. A nice paint job probably won't net you an extra $15k if you just drop a for sale by owner sign in your front yard when it's done.

You're missing the point. I pulled those numbers out of my ass... But the neighborhoods my dad worked, on the average a house was 300 to 500k. it's not crazy to think a good paint job (which in his case included patterned jobs on the pool deck and drive way) might bump the price up more than 2-3k, which is what he typically charged.

Let's say, by some crazy set of circumstances, the home owner gets an extra 10k when he was only charged 3k. Is that robbery?

No because he probably would've never paid 10k for a paint job. The painter is only due what the home owner will pay him.

And if the home owner is only looking to increase the value of the house, that's completely pointless if they pay the help everything that they gain in equity.

In other words they have to pay them less than they gain, otherwise what is the ****ing point?

nah you've been dodging

Feel free to start anew though I'm always willing to forgive.

They should split it

even if there are other people willing to do the paint job for you 3k, they should split it just to be nice? What world do you live in lol

I'd say whoever bought the house got robbed.

don't condescend me, we've been arguing in the context of capitalism this entire time

Tell me what your alternative system is
In detail. Don't bitch out.

try to keep up. He said they should split it which I was responding to.