The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

> No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?

You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand. Let's be clear: the topic of this discussion is not about me or whether I have people working for me as a customer. It's about addressing the widespread problem of companies underpaying their workers and prioritizing excessive profits over fair compensation.

While it is true that in everyday transactions, as a customer, I interact with employees at various businesses, that is not the crux of this debate. The main concern is the mistreatment and underpayment of workers within companies, especially those that are highly profitable.

As for the question of how often I pay workers more than they ask for, it is irrelevant to this conversation (but actually often I pay more, I tip people etc but I don't want it to be discussion about me). The focus should be on corporate practices and the need for businesses to recognize the value of their employees and provide fair wages.

So, let's get back on track and concentrate on the real issue – advocating for fair treatment, fair wages, and better working conditions for workers within companies.

Honestly, you're so focused on nitpicking and avoiding the real problem that it's frustrating to even continue this discussion. Stop defending the indefensible and open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Workers deserve better, and it's time for businesses to stop being so damn greedy.

Yes, I am addressing your original statement, which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits. My point was that this is an issue we should consider in our discussion about fair wages and workers' treatment.

> To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!"

No, I am not implying that Louis Vuitton or any other company has outstanding debt to its workers. The point is that if a company is making substantial profits but not adequately compensating its workers, it raises concerns about fair treatment and the distribution of wealth within the company.

> Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such.

I agree that businesses must pay their workers adequately to retain a skilled workforce. However, the issue is not whether workers are currently owed back payments, it's about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their contributions and that companies prioritize fair wages alongside their profits.

> Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well-considered opinion.

I disagree. Good faith participation involves discussing issues with the goal of seeking positive change and improvement. While we explore the way things are, we can also advocate for fair treatment and better conditions for workers based on ethical and moral considerations.

The real issue here is about recognizing that some companies may not prioritize fair wages for their workers, even if they have the means to do so. By discussing this, we can raise awareness and foster a better understanding of the challenges faced by workers in various industries.

It's evident that your approach to the discussion has been selective and avoiding certain aspects that do not fit your viewpoint. It's disappointing to see you ignore crucial points about the challenges faced by workers in various regions, especially those with low wages and inadequate labor protections.

Addressing only parts of the conversation that align with one's narrative while disregarding significant aspects of the discussion limits the potential for a constructive and well-rounded exchange of ideas. This behavior not only hampers progress in finding solutions but also fails to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of issues related to fair wages.

> You can't meaningfully seek positive change and improvement without understanding the current state of the world. Once you do understand it, that change is a natural consequence. It doesn't require drawn-out discussion.

While understanding the current state is crucial, meaningful change often requires open and constructive discussions to explore various perspectives and potential solutions. Engaging in dialogue allows us to gain insights from different viewpoints and fosters a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

> Jumping straight to pushing your agenda of what you think is the positive change and improvement is bad faith participation as it robs other parties from the understanding of why it is the change they too want to see, and is typically done so because the message wouldn't be compelling if the other parties had that underlying understanding.

Advocating for positive change can also involve presenting well-considered ideas and supporting them with evidence and reasoning. Engaging in open discussions allows us to better comprehend the underlying issues and work towards consensus on positive improvements for all parties involved.

> What is fair is established when two exchanging parties have reached an agreement on what they both consider an equal exchange of value. Until such an agreement can be made, a transaction does not begin. If, later, one party does not fulfill their end of the agreement, then that would be unfair, but debt is also created. When there is unfairness, there is debt. They are intrinsically linked.

Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction. It involves ongoing relationships between employers and employees. While formal agreements are crucial, there is also a moral and ethical dimension to consider in how workers are treated over time, especially in light of the company's profits and growth.

There is important additional context that needs to be considered when discussing fair exchanges in the labor market. In many cases, especially in poor countries or among economically vulnerable individuals, the concept of "equal exchange of value" might not be applicable in the traditional sense.

For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages. When individuals are in desperate need of employment to survive, they might accept any job opportunity presented to them, even if the compensation is not sufficient.

In such cases, the power dynamics between employers and employees are significantly skewed, making it challenging for workers to demand fair wages. This imbalance can lead to underpayment and exploitation, and it may not be a result of an equal and voluntary agreement between the parties.

Recognizing this context is essential to understanding the complexity of labor issues and the intrinsic link between unfairness and debt that you mentioned earlier. It highlights the need for greater attention to workers rights, social safety nets, and the role of governments and businesses in ensuring fair treatment and better opportunities for economically vulnerable individuals.

In discussions about fair wages, we must consider the broader socioeconomic context and work towards addressing the root causes of inequality and exploitation in the labor market. By doing so, we can foster an environment where all workers are treated fairly and have the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

There is no rush.

> Fairness in the context of business goes beyond just an initial transaction.

Well, sure. The world certainly isn't static. What is fair can change over time. And to be sure, one can negotiate at every turn to stay on top of that, but that's not terribly efficient for long-term engagements, so workers usually seek a long-standing agreement and renegotiate only as needed, like the Louis Vuitton workers did as discussed earlier.

Indeed, the workers we like to subcategorize as contractors often try to renegotiate at every turn, seeking opportunities in trying to stay current with what is fair. While it can be beneficial, the growth in what is fair has to exceed what is given up to navigate the inefficiencies, which often doesn't happen. We'd all be contractors if it was always a better deal. Usually the worker is better off when the agreement is long-standing.

> For many people in these situations, they may not have the luxury of multiple options or the bargaining power to negotiate for fair wages.

While this doesn't make sense, what I think you are trying to say is that some people are not worth as much as other people and that those people worth less will not be able to negotiate terms as favourable as someone worth more? If so, certainly. Everyone is different. Similarly, I expect your greed, as you call it, prevents you from paying Ferrari prices for a Chevy Trax as well.

After all, the whole reason for attaching a price to something is to deal with scarcity. The cost is supposed to scare you away. The higher the cost, the more scared you should be of using up the resource. But if someone has nothing else to do with their life, why would you want to be scared of them? Are they not best utilized to the betterment of themselves and humanity as a whole, not tossed aside out of fear?

On the flip side, you should be terribly afraid of hiring someone like a doctor to sew handbags. You want to see that they are tossed aside so that they can work as a doctor instead. They and all the rest of humanity is better off when you toss them aside. This is why they must carry a much scarier price.

It is never difficult to negotiate a fair wage. Tricking someone into paying an unfair wage, where you see greater value than you give back in return, is a lot harder. But that questions: Have you actually tricked them, or was the agreement fair all along? The reality is that any offer that is considered unfair, by either side, is rejected and a transaction never takes place. When an agreement is made, it is always considered fair. You, fundamentally, cannot work for someone for an unfair wage.

That is, assuming involved parties are holding true to the agreement made. If someone is not holding up their end of the bargain then that would be unfair, but that also introduces debt...

> It is important to recognize that the labor market is not a perfect representation of resource allocation.

There is no importance to that statement at all. It is a true statement, but it doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.

> The concept of "scarcity" in this context does not equate to the value of human labor or the potential contributions individuals can make to society.

The perception of scarcity is what drives the perceived value of human labour. If I think I can put out a job ad and see a thousand great people line up for a chance at the job, I'm not going to find much value in the work. If I think there is only one person in the world who can suitably do the job, and every other company wants to hire them too, I know it is going to take one hell of an offer to compel them in my direction.

Which brings us back to the first comment in this thread (the one before my first). That is exactly what they stated. If you think they mischaracterized the state of the world, you should take it up with them. These circles you keep us running around in are pointless.