I recently posted a point on facebook that got pretty widespread criticism...that not having a minimum wage does not equal "slavery" or slave wages. The main thrust of my point was that because both parties are willing participants in the transaction, even when someone accepts work for $2/hr, this is does not constitute "slavery". There is no doubt that employers would like to pay less and employees would like to earn more, but neither unlimited want can be fulfilled. The main cry I heard was of "unfairness" and employers being "uncaring" for offering less than premium pay, especially for those "unskilled" jobs that often only earn minimum wage.
I ran across this take on employee "exploitation" and felt it clearly summarized my point and gave good basis for the concept of win-win transactions (where both parties freely transact because of perceived benefit in the transaction).
"The essence of exchange is the transfer of title. Here's the essence of what happens when I buy a gallon of milk from my grocer. I tell him that I hold title to these three dollars and he holds title to the gallon of milk. Then, I offer: If you transfer your title to that gallon of milk, I will transfer title to these three dollars. Whenever there's voluntary exchange, the only clear conclusion that a third party can make is that both parties, in their opinion, perceived themselves as better off as a result of the exchange; otherwise, they wouldn't have exchanged. I was free to keep my three dollars, and the grocer was free to keep his milk. If you think it's obvious that both parties benefit from voluntary exchange, then how come we hear pronouncements about worker exploitation? Say you offer me a wage of $2 an hour. I'm free to either accept or reject your offer. So what can be concluded if I'm seen working for you at $2 an hour? One clear conclusion is that I must have seen myself as being better off taking your offer than my next best alternative. All other alternatives were less valuable, or else why would I have accepted the $2 offer? How appropriate is it to say that you're exploiting me when you've given me my best offer? Rather than using the term exploitation, you might say you wish I had more desirable alternatives. While people might characterize $2 an hour as exploitation, they wouldn't say the same about $50 an hour. Therefore, for the most part, when people use the term exploitation in reference to voluntary exchange, they simply disagree with the price. If we equate price disagreement with exploitation, then exploitation is everywhere. For example, I not only disagree with my salary, I also disagree with the prices of Gulfstream private jets. By no means do I suggest that you purge your vocabulary of the term exploitation. It's an emotionally valuable term to use to trick others, but in the process of tricking others, one need not trick himself. I'm reminded of charges of exploitation Mrs. Williams used to make early on in our 44-year marriage. She'd charge, "Walter, you're using me!" I'd respond by saying, "Honey, sure, I'm using you. If I had no use for you, I wouldn't have married you in the first place." How many of us would marry a person for whom we had no use? As a matter of fact, the problem of the lonely hearts among us is that they can't find someone to use them."- Dr. Walter E. Williams
3 comments:
Great quote. I think the point about minimum wages is true. People who choose to accept a job that pays little are not exploited but simply making a conscious decision that the wage is better then they can otherwise get.
That however does not mean that exploitation does not exist. In fact the main problem people have with Wal-Marts factories overseas is that the people are forced to work so much that they cannot have lives. In addition even in the USA people are exploited by employers who lure them in with lies of a certain wage but then neglect to pay them any overtime, don't pay them on time, and generally don't live up to their end of the bargain.
Hey Bryan, thanks for commenting. I agree that exploitation can happen in societies which have little regard for the rule of law... but enough about the US... hehe.
Truly, the issues of exploitation you've noted here with regard to US employers unfairly (and illegally) withholding due payment, is able to be fixed. The government labor board will swiftly require an employer to cough up or prove that such wages were not owed in a dispute. I know a lot of people probably shut up because they don't want to lose their jobs, yet there is recourse for someone being exploited through withholding any type of agreed upon pay.
Very interesting stuff Cameron. I like your quote.
Post a Comment