Why do liberals think that I am too stupid to negotiate on my own behalf?

Liberal Dude wrote:

From your perspective what contracts, if any, should be banned?

I think this is as much an empirical as a moral question...I like the moral philosophy of a guy named Muchael Huemer, who argues: 1) we need really, really clear evidence that some private matter is harmful before we intervene; and 2) we currently don't have that kind of evidence on all but a handful of issues, the exceptions being things like "slavery is bad." Here's that argument at more length

.

So, with regards to al the contracts we currently ban, I favor phasing them all in, and then if some particular contract has really bad consequences, we phase it back out. But it needs to be super duper obvious that the arrangement was at fault.

How about you?

Most liberals believe that if only you were as smart as they are, you would

understand why they know what's best for you.

If you are an adult working for below minimum wage you really are not that smart.

Are you voting Trump too?

I thought so.

working guy wrote:

[quote]ScottEvil wrote:

I think the standard for illegalizing a contract should be significant harm/risk to third parties. I should never be prevented from entering into a contract because of potential harm to myself. It's my job to make that call.

Three things about that:

1) regarding harms to others (externalities), a progressive could argue that this is a good reason for a minimum wage. All workers want to be paid more, but if one worker "defects" and selects a slightly lower wage, then employers fire the other people, who have an incentive to defect as well and choose a lower wage, and you get a downward spiral of wages. Now I think this is wrong as an empirical matter -- almost everybody earns more than the minimum wage, suggesting other forces at play -- but this isn't crazy. So as liberal dude pointed out, min wage can have assumptions other than "you're stupid." It could also be "you're trapped in a prisoner's dilemma."

2) Are you familiar with the coase theorem? David Friedman provides a great overview, worth delving into

. "The first step is to realize that an external cost is not simply a cost produced by the pollutor and born by the victim. In almost all cases, the cost is a result of decisions by both parties. I would not be coughing if your steel mill were not pouring out sulfur dioxide. But your steel mill would do no damage to me if I did not happen to live down wind from it. It is the joint decision—yours to pollute and mine to live where you are polluting—that produces the cost."

3) I prefer to use the term progressive to describe the thinking you're railing against. I myself am very liberal and think minimum wage laws ae a bad idea. It's a shame that the two strands have separated so.

Got to watch the debates, thanks for a fun discussion.

he is a fraud wrote:

working guy wrote:

I am working for less than the proposed $15/hr minimum wage. Why do you want to make my employment situation illegal if I myself am fine with it?

Do you have a family with kids?

How much public assistance do you receive?

Kids on free or reduced lunch?

So, someone who is able to get by on less than $15/hr should have his work opportunities restricted because someone else cannot?

And did it ever occur to you that perhaps someone who wishes to have a family with kids could possibly be responsible enough to get the education/training/experience needed to earn well above $15/hr BEFORE deciding that it is a good idea to have kids?

At least they're trying to work. And also, with the attempt by democrats to give amnesty to millions of under-educated 'minimum wage' workers, along with the 'gimme free sh!t" generation, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that you're a complete imbecile.Trump is strange, but you're just dumb.

he is a fraud wrote:

If you are an adult working for below minimum wage you really are not that smart.

Are you voting Trump too?

I thought so.

And the market almost always favors employers and functions to drive down wages...turdbrain.

If a business can't pay their employees wages that they can survive on (and minimum wage is already below that threshold in many places) then the balance needs to be paid for by the state (healthcare, welfare, etc). In a capitalist society the state isn't responsible for financing every business that has difficulty turning a profit. Therefore the state places a legal minimum on how much employers are allowed to pay. Judging by the number of WalMart employees who need state assistance, that threshold is probably too low already.

vzxczxf wrote:

If a business can't pay their employees wages that they can survive on (and minimum wage is already below that threshold in many places) then the balance needs to be paid for by the state (healthcare, welfare, etc). In a capitalist society the state isn't responsible for financing every business that has difficulty turning a profit. Therefore the state places a legal minimum on how much employers are allowed to pay. Judging by the number of WalMart employees who need state assistance, that threshold is probably too low already.

If the business was not employing these people then I'm pretty sure that the state would be on the hook for that much MORE healthcare, welfare, etc. Why is that not obvious? In that case it is very clear that the business is subsidizing the state, not the other way around (unless you believe in liquidating people who are not employed).

Annnddd, by "the state", you mean, the taxpayer. GFYS

vzxczxf wrote:

If a business can't pay their employees wages that they can survive on (and minimum wage is already below that threshold in many places) then the balance needs to be paid for by the state (healthcare, welfare, etc). In a capitalist society the state isn't responsible for financing every business that has difficulty turning a profit. Therefore the state places a legal minimum on how much employers are allowed to pay. Judging by the number of WalMart employees who need state assistance, that threshold is probably too low already.

You realize that Obama sent back more illegals than any other president.You don't believe that do you?Now who's dumb? YOU

der derr derrr wrote:

At least they're trying to work. And also, with the attempt by democrats to give amnesty to millions of under-educated 'minimum wage' workers, along with the 'gimme free sh!t" generation, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that you're a complete imbecile.

Trump is strange, but you're just dumb.

he is a fraud wrote:

If you are an adult working for below minimum wage you really are not that smart.

Are you voting Trump too?

I thought so.

The theory behind this situation is that the two parties have unequal negotiation power.

Ummm, I do know know that. But, are you saying the democrats DON'T want to give amnesty to millions in this country?