Anonymous asked: You argue that the state/system is inherently corrupt, but seem to think corporations can do no evil. An enforced minimum wage halters economic progress, but was put in place because people cannot afford to live earning only a couple of dollars an hour. Yes, having a job is better than nothing, but what's to say companies wouldnt exploit workers.
I dont think its possible to have a more romanticised notion of how you think the world will workout with government oversight:
I argue that the state is inherently corrupt because everything the government does requires coercion. It has to use force in all its dealings, this includes any ‘services’ it provides as they’re funded through taxation.
Corporations can do wrong, but the difference is the only way they can force people to engage with them is through governmental regulation(as is the attempt at the moment by Australian banks for the government to legislate requirements that every citizen holds a bank account, which they happen to define what exactly is required.) If a corporation starts acting in an undesirable way it’s easier for the people to pull support from them than it is a government. That is, they can remove their business to that company and then give it to a competitor.
Saying companies are going to exploit workers makes the suggestion that the person isn’t taking that job because they’re better off. People in developing nations take factory jobs because they’re better to provide for their family than the alternatives. As production increases so does the average wage and purchasing power of that wage.
The biggest problem with the minimum wage is that it locks the unskilled and the poor out of jobs and ensures that they can’t even begin to reach for the higher paying jobs. The problem I’ve found most people have is they assume that minimum wage jobs are permanent, they’re a stepping stone to higher paying jobs.
The other thing that needs to be taken into account is that collective and individual bargaining can help to ensure that the employee is getting an income they need to live(look at Singapore, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden.) They’ve got an effective minimum wage set by the industry.
But my main point in the post is without a government enforced minimum wage we already have one by the price floor due to welfare.(And it could be better achieved through a negative income tax as it removes decentives to work). No one that is one welfare would work for below what they were earning through not working, so a rational person would only accept a wage over what they’re being paid(which as I said is effectively $7 an hour.) We have a minimum wage, we just have a legislated required above what the would be even more beneficial to a person on welfare.
If a corporation starts acting in an undesirable way it’s easier for the people to pull support from them than it is a government. That is, they can remove their business to that company and then give it to a competitor.
I hate to break it to you but coprorations and private enterprise have been shitty for time immemorial.
Nike, Addidas, Puma etc and a fuckload of other clothing companies still source their labor from sweatshops.
Wallmart and a host of huge retailer still source some of their goods from factories where child labor is utilised.
Major Chocolate comapanies like Cadbury still source their cocoa from supplier that utilise slave labor
Major corporations like BP, Exxon and Coca Cola do untold irreversible damage to the envrionment.
At the end of the day these companies products continue selling despite public knowledge of how shitty they are. Why? Either people dont get give a shit (thought I like to think people do) or what I think is more is likely is that people do give a shit but there are seriously way too many companies to research what is ethical and what is not, and further in the face of mass consumerism boycotts are futile. Guess what if I stop eating Cadbury that shit is still going to sell. If I stop drinking Coke that shit is still going to sell.
You also have a severely romanticised notion of the power poor people have when choosing a job. Even if corporations treat their workers like shit people take the job anyway, why? because they need to feed their families and if that means a coporation exploits their human dignity with poor working conditions while the owners make millions so be it. Its why we have a central government that are and should be curbing corporations being shitty. Its why we have government regulation prohibiting child labor in Australia. its why we have laws regulating workplace safety and decent working conditions. Its why we have laws to stop corporations being racist sexist fucks. Its why we have government bodies and regulations that stop corporations from fucking our environment over. The idea that government is always is corrupt is childish, there is good government and bad government and you should be intelligent enough to distinguish between the two instead of fapping over your twisted ayn rand utopia (this doesnt even touch on why you are wrong about the min. wage and taxation )
Sweatshops(or something), sadly, are a natural progression that occurs during economic development. The first things that a developing nation can invest in making is basic manufacturing, I agree sweatshops are terrible, but again these people either have the choice of working their family farms or working in a factory, one of which enables them to have a better quality of life that they had previous. Economic development doesn’t happen suddenly, it’s a process that requires investment and capital building, and they’re both hard in nations where there is little wealth to invest. Child labour, again is something that has occurred throughout history(families working their farms, with a double incentive to have more kids because it means more workers as well as to counter the potential they could die due to disease.) Now the conditions being mentioned where they’re being beaten at work is disgusting, and would be better helped through private property rights(right to ones body.) I’d rather see these kids being kids, but again, it’s a result of the economic standards of the nation and the only way to fix that is to encourage economic development through trade and stronger private property rights, ensuring entrepreneurs have the right to the products of their labour without fear of it being seized.(As well as removing the crony capitalists that are rampant through many developing nations that create massive barriers to entry.) Only then will a country eradicate child labour if they have the economic conditions where parents can afford to live without requiring their children go to work.
Your other examples can all be solved by guaranteeing private property rights. A child is property of themselves, not their parents, not a company. A parent does however have an obligation to look after them, failing that find a home that would. These are literal slaves and are in violation of property rights(which aren’t secured in a lot of African nations.)
Again, Coca-Cola is infringing on private property rights of these people. And there is a case of compensation in a non-crony environment.
Child labour didn’t disappear in Australia due to a law, it disappeared due to improving economic conditions, which occurred because we had strong private property rights. Workplace safety conditions are applied terribly in Australia, with a blanket approach where each workplace would be better placed putting them in place based on the needs of the workplace(and I am going to point out that more people died in administration jobs than mining in 2012.) And again, people don’t want to work in an unsafe workplace so as competitors enter the market with better working conditions workers are going to move across and you’ll see comparable conditions(exactly why there are jobs that still pay over the minimum wage because they want workers.)
Environment again falls onto private property rights, if a person can prove that someone has damaged their property damages would have to be paid.
Corporations being racist and sexist again isn’t in the best interest of the company(especially in a world where a lot of companies require funding from the public it makes sense.) As well as diversity meaning a more diverse amount of ideas for innovation.
Now all these solutions can exist with a small to no state.
But I guess that is because you can’t make an argument in economic reality in relation to the original topic so you try to use arguments that essentially show why private property rights need to be protected. So congrats, you’ve proved again why you again only understand arguments based on “MUH FEELS!” and clearly don’t understand how integral economic rationality and minimal government intervention are important.