|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 5, 2013 6:33:44 GMT
I found a truly thought-provoking article in American Thinker, as regarding ObamaCare and its potential analogue in automobile insurance; an excerpt from which is contained below: Here is a link to the entire article: Articles: After Obamacare, ObamaCar Insurance?Note: Whereas I do not believe that those with medical preconditions should automatically be denied coverage or charged higher premiums--after all, many such preconditions are not the result of questionable lifestyle decisions--I do believe that we should be candid about the fact that this will tend to increase premiums, all other factors being equal. In other words, there really is no free lunch. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 30, 2013 13:00:46 GMT
I found a truly thought-provoking article in American Thinker, as regarding ObamaCare and its potential analogue in automobile insurance; an excerpt from which is contained below: Here is a link to the entire article: Articles: After Obamacare, ObamaCar Insurance?Note: Whereas I do not believe that those with medical preconditions should automatically be denied coverage or charged higher premiums--after all, many such preconditions are not the result of questionable lifestyle decisions--I do believe that we should be candid about the fact that this will tend to increase premiums, all other factors being equal. In other words, there really is no free lunch.
A thought provoking comparison worthy of at least a few comments.
We can note that with auto insurance the states where I've lived do intervene when it comes to auto insurance for high risk individuals. I'm not exactly sure how it works but here in WA we have SR22 insurance for those that have had their auto insurance canceled due to certain driving convictions such as drunk driving. I don't know that it results in lower premiums or not but I do know it increases the liability coverage for these individuals. What it does do in ensure that the person can obtain auto insurance although they are in a high risk pool.
Of course cases related to auto insurance are a direct and identifiable action of the person whereas medical conditions are not. We can't even claim that "smoking" is responsible for "heart desease" on an individual basis although statistically it increases the probability of heart desease. We can not connect cause and effect at the individual level related to "medical conditions" but we can do that related to driving. If a person drives drunk and crashes their car there is a direct cause and effect relationship but a smoker can get heart desease that is completely unrelated to their actual smoking. It could be a genetic cause and not a lifestyle cause.
When it comes to individuals with "pre-existing conditions" this is a rather fuzzy issue. In many cases the person did have insurance that covered those conditions but often due to no fault of their own they lost that coverage. For example a person could be under an employer paid group policy that covered the condition when it was first detected. Then they are laid off and while they could obtain "COBRA" coverage that would cover the conditions but the premiums for COBRA are so high that an unemployed person can't afford to pay for it. They lose their coverage and then when they go to re-apply for health insurance the premiums soar because of the "pre-existing condition" that was covered under their prior insurance policy.
While I don't have actual documentation to support the belief I do believe that most people with pre-existing conditions did have prior health insurance that covered the condition. The problem relates to the "break in coverage" often due to financial situations beyond the control of the person. I have considered many possible "solutions" to this problem but all have inherent problems.
One thought I had was that a person, after a break in coverage, should be able to regain their prior insurance at the prior premium by paying the back premiums (perhaps as a small addition to their premiums so that those back premiums are paid over time). The problem I found is that some insurance companies issue group policies for business but don't issue private insurance policies.
We could also change COBRA so that the person maintains their insurance without paying the premiums during times of unemployment so that they have "continuous coverage" where the rates do not increase. In short they were in a "pool" and we keep them in that pool by continuous coverage. It would have to be a component of their "unemployment" insurance but the costs are high. I was laid off once and the COBRA premium was about $500/mo and with average unemployment benefits being only about $300/wk ($1,200/mo) it would dramatically increase the costs of unemployment insurance.
Of course the problem of cancellations for developing a serious and costly medical condition was easily solved by simply prohibiting the practice.
All-in-all it is a tough nut to crack as no "solution" seems to work very well unless everyone is placed in the same pool regardless of their medical conditions. Yes, it does raise the costs for "healthy" people but insurance itself is about mitigating the high costs of a few by the low costs of many others. It pools risk factors and simply saying that someone's "risk factor" has changed isn't really logical in many respects when it comes to insurance.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 31, 2013 15:33:16 GMT
I found a truly thought-provoking article in American Thinker, as regarding ObamaCare and its potential analogue in automobile insurance; an excerpt from which is contained below: Here is a link to the entire article: Articles: After Obamacare, ObamaCar Insurance?Note: Whereas I do not believe that those with medical preconditions should automatically be denied coverage or charged higher premiums--after all, many such preconditions are not the result of questionable lifestyle decisions--I do believe that we should be candid about the fact that this will tend to increase premiums, all other factors being equal. In other words, there really is no free lunch.
A thought provoking comparison worthy of at least a few comments.
We can note that with auto insurance the states where I've lived do intervene when it comes to auto insurance for high risk individuals. I'm not exactly sure how it works but here in WA we have SR22 insurance for those that have had their auto insurance canceled due to certain driving convictions such as drunk driving. I don't know that it results in lower premiums or not but I do know it increases the liability coverage for these individuals. What it does do in ensure that the person can obtain auto insurance although they are in a high risk pool.
Of course cases related to auto insurance are a direct and identifiable action of the person whereas medical conditions are not. We can't even claim that "smoking" is responsible for "heart desease" on an individual basis although statistically it increases the probability of heart desease. We can not connect cause and effect at the individual level related to "medical conditions" but we can do that related to driving. If a person drives drunk and crashes their car there is a direct cause and effect relationship but a smoker can get heart desease that is completely unrelated to their actual smoking. It could be a genetic cause and not a lifestyle cause.
When it comes to individuals with "pre-existing conditions" this is a rather fuzzy issue. In many cases the person did have insurance that covered those conditions but often due to no fault of their own they lost that coverage. For example a person could be under an employer paid group policy that covered the condition when it was first detected. Then they are laid off and while they could obtain "COBRA" coverage that would cover the conditions but the premiums for COBRA are so high that an unemployed person can't afford to pay for it. They lose their coverage and then when they go to re-apply for health insurance the premiums soar because of the "pre-existing condition" that was covered under their prior insurance policy.
While I don't have actual documentation to support the belief I do believe that most people with pre-existing conditions did have prior health insurance that covered the condition. The problem relates to the "break in coverage" often due to financial situations beyond the control of the person. I have considered many possible "solutions" to this problem but all have inherent problems.
One thought I had was that a person, after a break in coverage, should be able to regain their prior insurance at the prior premium by paying the back premiums (perhaps as a small addition to their premiums so that those back premiums are paid over time). The problem I found is that some insurance companies issue group policies for business but don't issue private insurance policies.
We could also change COBRA so that the person maintains their insurance without paying the premiums during times of unemployment so that they have "continuous coverage" where the rates do not increase. In short they were in a "pool" and we keep them in that pool by continuous coverage. It would have to be a component of their "unemployment" insurance but the costs are high. I was laid off once and the COBRA premium was about $500/mo and with average unemployment benefits being only about $300/wk ($1,200/mo) it would dramatically increase the costs of unemployment insurance.
Of course the problem of cancellations for developing a serious and costly medical condition was easily solved by simply prohibiting the practice.
All-in-all it is a tough nut to crack as no "solution" seems to work very well unless everyone is placed in the same pool regardless of their medical conditions. Yes, it does raise the costs for "healthy" people but insurance itself is about mitigating the high costs of a few by the low costs of many others. It pools risk factors and simply saying that someone's "risk factor" has changed isn't really logical in many respects when it comes to insurance.
First, I agree with your observation that there is not always "a direct cause and effect relationship" between bad lifestyle choices and any specific instance of disease. In fact, I wrote the following: "I do not believe that those with medical preconditions should automatically be denied coverage or charged higher premiums--after all, many such preconditions are not the result of questionable lifestyle decisions..." I believe most states have a high-risk pool for automobile insurance, known as SR-22 insurance. Certainly, Tennessee (my own home state) does. Oh, as an aside: $300 per week translates to $1,300 per average month--not $1,200. (There are 52 weeks in a year--plus one day, typically; but let us ignore that--and 12 months. Fifty-two divided by 12 is 4 1/3. And 4 1/3 times $300 is $1,300.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 1, 2014 13:00:20 GMT
Oh, as an aside: $300 per week translates to $1,300 per average month--not $1,200. (There are 52 weeks in a year--plus one day, typically; but let us ignore that--and 12 months. Fifty-two divided by 12 is 4 1/3. And 4 1/3 times $300 is $1,300.)
Yes, that is more accurate than my simple calculation but the fact remains that a person on unemployment is only receiving a percentage of their wages in any case and usually it's not enough to cover their normal cost of living much less to cover the additional costs of COBRA health insurance which would continue their health insurance coverage. While relatively well off families might be able to enroll in COBRA I would estimate that perhaps 80% of American households can't.
So the loss of coverage creates a "break" where their medical conditions are re-evaluated for heath insurance purposes and if a "pre-existing" condition exists, which would have been covered without the break in coverage, then the insurance premiums skyrocket making it "unaffordable" for those affected. As noted in 2009 about 3 million Americans (which was only 1% of Americans) fell into a group where this could have happened in most cases.
Ironically if the person manages to secure another job where group health insurance is provided by the employer then their condition is covered but the problem is that not all employers offer group health insurance.
This is one reason why when I look at the problem of health insurance I often come back to the opinion that the employers should be providing health insurance as a part of the compensation package for the employee. It would eliminate the "pre-existing condition" basically for anyone able to work or where a family member works and they would be covered by that policy. Even as a laissez faire capitalist I have come to believe that an employer has an obligation to the employee to ensure that the compensation for their labor is enough to cover basic necessities of life. Someone working 40 hours per week should not require government assistance that is provided for by other workers as that amounts to the taxpayers subsidizing the employer that fails to adequately compensate their employee.
From my perspective "individual welfare assistance" is actually de facto "corporate welfare" as it addresses underpayments for labor by the employer. I'm not an advocate of the "minimum wage" but do see underpayments for labor as being a serious problem where the "Law of Supply and Demand" is being applied to labor and it results in underpayments by an employer where the person cannot afford to pay for the basic necessities of life which include health care services.
It is not an easy problem by any definition and much is involved with trying to come up with a pragmatic solution to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 1, 2014 14:57:25 GMT
Oh, as an aside: $300 per week translates to $1,300 per average month--not $1,200. (There are 52 weeks in a year--plus one day, typically; but let us ignore that--and 12 months. Fifty-two divided by 12 is 4 1/3. And 4 1/3 times $300 is $1,300.)
Yes, that is more accurate than my simple calculation but the fact remains that a person on unemployment is only receiving a percentage of their wages in any case and usually it's not enough to cover their normal cost of living much less to cover the additional costs of COBRA health insurance which would continue their health insurance coverage. While relatively well off families might be able to enroll in COBRA I would estimate that perhaps 80% of American households can't.
So the loss of coverage creates a "break" where their medical conditions are re-evaluated for heath insurance purposes and if a "pre-existing" condition exists, which would have been covered without the break in coverage, then the insurance premiums skyrocket making it "unaffordable" for those affected. As noted in 2009 about 3 million Americans (which was only 1% of Americans) fell into a group where this could have happened in most cases.
Ironically if the person manages to secure another job where group health insurance is provided by the employer then their condition is covered but the problem is that not all employers offer group health insurance.
This is one reason why when I look at the problem of health insurance I often come back to the opinion that the employers should be providing health insurance as a part of the compensation package for the employee. It would eliminate the "pre-existing condition" basically for anyone able to work or where a family member works and they would be covered by that policy. Even as a laissez faire capitalist I have come to believe that an employer has an obligation to the employee to ensure that the compensation for their labor is enough to cover basic necessities of life. Someone working 40 hours per week should not require government assistance that is provided for by other workers as that amounts to the taxpayers subsidizing the employer that fails to adequately compensate their employee.
From my perspective "individual welfare assistance" is actually de facto "corporate welfare" as it addresses underpayments for labor by the employer. I'm not an advocate of the "minimum wage" but do see underpayments for labor as being a serious problem where the "Law of Supply and Demand" is being applied to labor and it results in underpayments by an employer where the person cannot afford to pay for the basic necessities of life which include health care services.
It is not an easy problem by any definition and much is involved with trying to come up with a pragmatic solution to it.
I cannot disagree with your observations as contained in the first three paragraphs of your post, above. However, to describe yourself as "a laissez faire capitalist" who nonetheless believes that "an employer has an obligation to the employee to ensure that the compensation for their labor is enough to cover basic necessities of life" strikes me as an intellectual inconsistency. Either one is attached to the "living wage" school of thought (with the concept broadened a bit, perhaps, to include fairly generous benefits also) or one is attached to that school that believes that such government-mandated increases tend to result in increased unemployment (especially among those who possess limited skills), fewer hours of work for those who retain their jobs, and/or higher prices for the goods produced. You appear to have one foot in each camp... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 1, 2014 15:12:35 GMT
However, to describe yourself as "a laissez faire capitalist" who nonetheless believes that "an employer has an obligation to the employee to ensure that the compensation for their labor is enough to cover basic necessities of life" strikes me as an intellectual inconsistency. Either one is attached to the "living wage" school of thought (with the concept broadened a bit, perhaps, to include fairly generous benefits also) or one is attached to that school that believes that such government-mandated increases tend to result in increased unemployment (especially among those who possess limited skills), fewer hours of work for those who retain their jobs, and/or higher prices for the goods produced. You appear to have one foot in each camp...
It is a paradox for me as, once again, I believe in the concept of "contracts" and a fundamental principle of the "contract" is that both parties should enter the contract without coercion and each should benefit equally from the contract. When we have one enterprise that uses the coercion of the market place (created by the Law of Supply and Demand when applied to labor) where that enterprise is profiting while the other "enterrpise" (i.e. the workers is an "enterprise" providing labor) is operating at a loss then something is fundamentally wrong with the contract.
The "Law of Supply and Demand" breaks down when it's applied to labor and that is something I recognize but don't have a quick and easy "magic bullet" to resolve the problem. It creates coercion in the labor contract which violates the principles of contract.
I don't advocate government interventionism but at the same time I recognize that the "labor contract" can be based upon coercion where the person can be forced to "operate at a loss" which is unsustainable and harms the ecomony. I can also draw a line between the dots when I see that if employers didn't underpay for labor then there would be no necessity for government welfare assistance. For me that represents an indirect form of corporate welfare as the taxpayers are required to make-up the difference between the employer's underpayment in compensation and the cost of the necessities for the employee. If the "underpayment" did not exist then there would be no need for government assistance to the individual.
It is all very thought provoking and I don't have a pat answer to the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 1, 2014 15:35:14 GMT
I don't know if government mandated minimum wages result in increased unemployment but do know that, at least anecdotal they don't and it appears that on a macro level analysis they don't either.
Anecdotally Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers while reducing the cost of production dramatically. Not all of the costs of Ford automobiles at that time can be attributed to the doubling of compensation but certainly the dedicated workforce created by the wage increase did significantly reduce the production costs. Employee turnover is a huge expense of enterprise and higher compensation reduces employee turnover.
At a macro level consumption (not investment) drives the economy. For every direct dollar of "compensation" to the employee spent on consumption it generates $1.82 in consumption due to the mulitipler effect of spending. Basically higher compensation at low wage jobs where all of that additional compensation is spent on consumption improves the economy and an improved economy benefits the enterprises that provide goods and services for the economy. With more "spending" on goods and services more jobs are created.
So if we improve the economy by increasing compensation to those workers that spend 100% of their disposable income on consumption it has to result in more jobs and not less jobs. The only "losing" proposition is when money goes to those that don't increase consumption based upon increases in income which are typically the very wealthy. The poor have the highest percentage of income spent on consumption while the wealthy have the lowest percentage of income spent on consumption.
So where should the "money" be going if we want the economy to improve and more jobs created?
Once agian I'm not advocating government interventionism but simply establishing some facts related to jobs and the economy. More consumption equals more jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 3, 2014 0:18:07 GMT
However, to describe yourself as "a laissez faire capitalist" who nonetheless believes that "an employer has an obligation to the employee to ensure that the compensation for their labor is enough to cover basic necessities of life" strikes me as an intellectual inconsistency. Either one is attached to the "living wage" school of thought (with the concept broadened a bit, perhaps, to include fairly generous benefits also) or one is attached to that school that believes that such government-mandated increases tend to result in increased unemployment (especially among those who possess limited skills), fewer hours of work for those who retain their jobs, and/or higher prices for the goods produced. You appear to have one foot in each camp...
It is a paradox for me as, once again, I believe in the concept of "contracts" and a fundamental principle of the "contract" is that both parties should enter the contract without coercion and each should benefit equally from the contract. When we have one enterprise that uses the coercion of the market place (created by the Law of Supply and Demand when applied to labor) where that enterprise is profiting while the other "enterrpise" (i.e. the workers is an "enterprise" providing labor) is operating at a loss then something is fundamentally wrong with the contract.
The "Law of Supply and Demand" breaks down when it's applied to labor and that is something I recognize but don't have a quick and easy "magic bullet" to resolve the problem. It creates coercion in the labor contract which violates the principles of contract.
I don't advocate government interventionism but at the same time I recognize that the "labor contract" can be based upon coercion where the person can be forced to "operate at a loss" which is unsustainable and harms the ecomony. I can also draw a line between the dots when I see that if employers didn't underpay for labor then there would be no necessity for government welfare assistance. For me that represents an indirect form of corporate welfare as the taxpayers are required to make-up the difference between the employer's underpayment in compensation and the cost of the necessities for the employee. If the "underpayment" did not exist then there would be no need for government assistance to the individual.
It is all very thought provoking and I don't have a pat answer to the problem.
It would probably be best to be very careful about speaking of the (alleged) "underpayment" for labor. This seems perilously close to the Marxian view of "surplus" labor. And I am not at all certain that it is possible for a free-market capitalist to believe that it is even possible to underpay employees, given the self-regulating nature of free markets. Which is to say, if other employers consider a worker's contributions more valuable, they may certainly offer a higher wage, better benefits--or even both--thereby attracting both this worker and other, similar workers. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 3, 2014 10:20:52 GMT
It would probably be best to be very careful about speaking of the (alleged) "underpayment" for labor. This seems perilously close to the Marxian view of "surplus" labor. And I am not at all certain that it is possible for a free-market capitalist to believe that it is even possible to underpay employees, given the self-regulating nature of free markets. Which is to say, if other employers consider a worker's contributions more valuable, they may certainly offer a higher wage, bebetter benefits--or even both--thereby attracting both this worker and other, similar workers.
It is my understanding that the term "underpayment" did originate with Marxian economic philosophies but the use of a word does not imply that the philosophy is being advocated. I also tend to avoid the use of the word "free market" as it implies an economy lacking any regulation which is by default "corporate" capitalism which has proven to be a failure as corporations will not self-regulate themselves in far too many instances. I perfer the use of the term "laisse faire" capitalism as in at least one definition of the term it stated that laissez faire capitalism required those regulations necessary to protect the rights of the person but did not allow for government interventionism to determine outcomes in the economy. Perhaps neither term is accurate though.
Where perhaps I differ from some is that I'm not going to "hang my hat" on a term or belief that creates an injustice. When I look at the self-regulating nature of "free market" based upon the "law of supply and demand" it generally works for goods and services but fails in some cases when it comes to labor. I look at it as a bad mathmatical equation where it might work in most cases but also fails in other cases because it is flawed. The "law of supply and demand" is by analogy like looking at the universe based upon Newton's formulas and I search for Einstien's universe.
"In a perfect world" there would be no invidious discrimination nor would there be any coercion related to a contract but we don't live in the perfect world. Our world is far from perfect and invidious discrimination and coercion in contracts does exist. Obviously this is not true in all cases but it is true in far too many cases and invidious discrimination and coercion violate the Rights of the Person.
So problems exist and the question is whether we're willing to address them or not? If we don't then we're allowing a violation of the Rights of the Person and that is something I cannot advocate. In many cases, especially those related to invidious discrimination and coercion, we cannot address them directly by government to prevent the occurance but goverment may be able to mitigate the effects of these violations of the Rights of the Person.
If we cannot prevent a violation of the Rights of the Person then I'm forced to accept that our only option as a society is to mitigate the effects of the violation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 3, 2014 15:18:49 GMT
It would probably be best to be very careful about speaking of the (alleged) "underpayment" for labor. This seems perilously close to the Marxian view of "surplus" labor. And I am not at all certain that it is possible for a free-market capitalist to believe that it is even possible to underpay employees, given the self-regulating nature of free markets. Which is to say, if other employers consider a worker's contributions more valuable, they may certainly offer a higher wage, bebetter benefits--or even both--thereby attracting both this worker and other, similar workers.
It is my understanding that the term "underpayment" did originate with Marxian economic philosophies but the use of a word does not imply that the philosophy is being advocated. I also tend to avoid the use of the word "free market" as it implies an economy lacking any regulation which is by default "corporate" capitalism which has proven to be a failure as corporations will not self-regulate themselves in far too many instances. I perfer the use of the term "laisse faire" capitalism as in at least one definition of the term it stated that laissez faire capitalism required those regulations necessary to protect the rights of the person but did not allow for government interventionism to determine outcomes in the economy. Perhaps neither term is accurate though.
Where perhaps I differ from some is that I'm not going to "hang my hat" on a term or belief that creates an injustice. When I look at the self-regulating nature of "free market" based upon the "law of supply and demand" it generally works for goods and services but fails in some cases when it comes to labor. I look at it as a bad mathmatical equation where it might work in most cases but also fails in other cases because it is flawed. The "law of supply and demand" is by analogy like looking at the universe based upon Newton's formulas and I search for Einstien's universe.
"In a perfect world" there would be no invidious discrimination nor would there be any coercion related to a contract but we don't live in the perfect world. Our world is far from perfect and invidious discrimination and coercion in contracts does exist. Obviously this is not true in all cases but it is true in far too many cases and invidious discrimination and coercion violate the Rights of the Person.
So problems exist and the question is whether we're willing to address them or not? If we don't then we're allowing a violation of the Rights of the Person and that is something I cannot advocate. In many cases, especially those related to invidious discrimination and coercion, we cannot address them directly by government to prevent the occurance but goverment may be able to mitigate the effects of these violations of the Rights of the Person.
If we cannot prevent a violation of the Rights of the Person then I'm forced to accept that our only option as a society is to mitigate the effects of the violation.
The self-regulation of which I speak is not based upon some gauzy altruism; rather, it is based upon the fact that if the markets generally value the labor of an unskilled person more highly than a particular employer does, his (or her) competitors will offer a higher wage, better benefits, or both. The markets, therefore, tend to self-regulate, predicated entirely upon each employer's self-interest. To refer to anything that contradicts living-wage doctrine as "a violation of the Rights of the Person" is necessarily to imply that everyone has a right to a certain standard of living; and that is a notion that I simply decline to embrace. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 4, 2014 12:28:53 GMT
The self-regulation of which I speak is not based upon some gauzy altruism; rather, it is based upon the fact that if the markets generally value the labor of an unskilled person more highly than a particular employer does, his (or her) competitors will offer a higher wage, better benefits, or both. The markets, therefore, tend to self-regulate, predicated entirely upon each employer's self-interest. To refer to anything that contradicts living-wage doctrine as "a violation of the Rights of the Person" is necessarily to imply that everyone has a right to a certain standard of living; and that is a notion that I simply decline to embrace.
The problem arises when there is extensive unemployment where the "unskilled" workers are forced to accept employment at ever decreasing rates of compensation until they're operating at a loss (i.e. below the actual costs of necessities like food, shelter, energy, and health care) and that is unsustainable. No entity can exist while operating at a loss indefinately. Unlike the sales of goods where an enterprise it not going to keep purchasing them at one price and then selling them at a lower price the person has no choice when it comes to selling their labor. They have to work to survive and the expenditures continue whether they sell their labor or not. So they're forced to operate at a loss because if they don't then they have no income but the expenditures continue nonetheless. It is a form of coercion created by supply and demand for labor where the person is forced to accept a contract where they're operating at a loss.
Contracts cannot be based upon coercion under the laws of contract but that is exactly what's happening when it comes to labor in this instance. A contract based upon coercion violates the Rights of the Person and we know that this coercion exists in the labor market for low paid employees that cannot refuse the job offer. They must accept the employment contact because there isn't a "job down the street" that offers more compensation. The law of supply and demand breaks down because there is far more "supply" than "demand" and that forces the person to operate at a loss.
We can compare this to an "unfair business" practice where a large enterprise is willing to sell goods at a loss to drive a small competitor out of business to obtain monopoly control of the market. The large enterprise, often with numerous financial revenue streams, has the financial resources to purchase goods and sell them for less than the costs of the goods while the small enterprise can't afford to do this. It would be like Home Depot carrying all of the items of an Ace Hardware store and temporarily selling them at a loss until it drives the small Ace Hardware store owner out of business. This is against the law because it creates an unfair business practice.
As I noted there is a paradox though that I haven't resolved. A person doesn't have a "Right" to a standard of living but not all of our laws are based upon the "Rights of the Person" as some are based upon the morality of society. As a moral people we cannot allow a person to starve, be forced into homelessness, or go without medical treatment and left to die. It would be immoral for us to allow that to happen.
We do not, for example, allow the guardian of an infant/child to let that infant/child starve to death even though the infant/child doesn't have a "Right to Be Fed" as that imposes an obligation upon another person and a Right cannot impose an upon another person. The infant/child has a "Right to Eat" but not a "Right to Be Fed" based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. We addressed this by establishing that the guardianship of the infant/child is a voluntary act that creates the obligation of the guardian to care for the infant/child. A woman can have a child and leave that infant at the hospital thereby refusing to voluntarily accept guardianship and the "State" assumes responsibility and will place that infant in the care of a voluntary guardian that accepts the legal responsibility to care for the infant/child.
Can't employment be addressed in the same manner? An enterprise does not have to employ other persons and it is a voluntary act by the person operating the enterprise to do so. Because it is a voluntary act cannot we not also include a legal obligation based upon the voluntary act of the person that requires the compensation of the employee be enough to provide the basic necessities of life? Is this not preferrable to instead having to tax the general population to ensure that the worker has enough food to eat, can afford housing and energy, and health care services when necessary?
Imposition of a requirement based upon a voluntary act of the person does not violate their Inalienable Rights. For example we require auto insurance under the law if a person wants to drive on the public roads and that is not a violation of their Inalienable Rights as a person. Driving on the public roads creates a voluntary financial obligation of the person.
OMG - I think I just provided a legitmate case for minimum wage laws as employment is a voluntary act by the employer and we can impose condition, including financial obligations, upon the voluntary acts of the person. So long as the action is voluntary then the person has the Right to not commit the act therefore their Rights as a Person are not being violated. They (the owners of enterprise) assume responsibility for the obligation volutarily related to a minimum wage law as they are not required to employ anyone. My libertarian friends are going to have a conniption fit!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 5, 2014 3:09:36 GMT
The self-regulation of which I speak is not based upon some gauzy altruism; rather, it is based upon the fact that if the markets generally value the labor of an unskilled person more highly than a particular employer does, his (or her) competitors will offer a higher wage, better benefits, or both. The markets, therefore, tend to self-regulate, predicated entirely upon each employer's self-interest. To refer to anything that contradicts living-wage doctrine as "a violation of the Rights of the Person" is necessarily to imply that everyone has a right to a certain standard of living; and that is a notion that I simply decline to embrace.
The problem arises when there is extensive unemployment where the "unskilled" workers are forced to accept employment at ever decreasing rates of compensation until they're operating at a loss (i.e. below the actual costs of necessities like food, shelter, energy, and health care) and that is unsustainable. No entity can exist while operating at a loss indefinately. Unlike the sales of goods where an enterprise it not going to keep purchasing them at one price and then selling them at a lower price the person has no choice when it comes to selling their labor. They have to work to survive and the expenditures continue whether they sell their labor or not. So they're forced to operate at a loss because if they don't then they have no income but the expenditures continue nonetheless. It is a form of coercion created by supply and demand for labor where the person is forced to accept a contract where they're operating at a loss.
Contracts cannot be based upon coercion under the laws of contract but that is exactly what's happening when it comes to labor in this instance. A contract based upon coercion violates the Rights of the Person and we know that this coercion exists in the labor market for low paid employees that cannot refuse the job offer. They must accept the employment contact because there isn't a "job down the street" that offers more compensation. The law of supply and demand breaks down because there is far more "supply" than "demand" and that forces the person to operate at a loss.
We can compare this to an "unfair business" practice where a large enterprise is willing to sell goods at a loss to drive a small competitor out of business to obtain monopoly control of the market. The large enterprise, often with numerous financial revenue streams, has the financial resources to purchase goods and sell them for less than the costs of the goods while the small enterprise can't afford to do this. It would be like Home Depot carrying all of the items of an Ace Hardware store and temporarily selling them at a loss until it drives the small Ace Hardware store owner out of business. This is against the law because it creates an unfair business practice.
As I noted there is a paradox though that I haven't resolved. A person doesn't have a "Right" to a standard of living but not all of our laws are based upon the "Rights of the Person" as some are based upon the morality of society. As a moral people we cannot allow a person to starve, be forced into homelessness, or go without medical treatment and left to die. It would be immoral for us to allow that to happen.
We do not, for example, allow the guardian of an infant/child to let that infant/child starve to death even though the infant/child doesn't have a "Right to Be Fed" as that imposes an obligation upon another person and a Right cannot impose an upon another person. The infant/child has a "Right to Eat" but not a "Right to Be Fed" based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. We addressed this by establishing that the guardianship of the infant/child is a voluntary act that creates the obligation of the guardian to care for the infant/child. A woman can have a child and leave that infant at the hospital thereby refusing to voluntarily accept guardianship and the "State" assumes responsibility and will place that infant in the care of a voluntary guardian that accepts the legal responsibility to care for the infant/child.
Can't employment be addressed in the same manner? An enterprise does not have to employ other persons and it is a voluntary act by the person operating the enterprise to do so. Because it is a voluntary act cannot we not also include a legal obligation based upon the voluntary act of the person that requires the compensation of the employee be enough to provide the basic necessities of life? Is this not preferrable to instead having to tax the general population to ensure that the worker has enough food to eat, can afford housing and energy, and health care services when necessary?
Imposition of a requirement based upon a voluntary act of the person does not violate their Inalienable Rights. For example we require auto insurance under the law if a person wants to drive on the public roads and that is not a violation of their Inalienable Rights as a person. Driving on the public roads creates a voluntary financial obligation of the person.
OMG - I think I just provided a legitmate case for minimum wage laws as employment is a voluntary act by the employer and we can impose condition, including financial obligations, upon the voluntary acts of the person. So long as the action is voluntary then the person has the Right to not commit the act therefore their Rights as a Person are not being violated. They (the owners of enterprise) assume responsibility for the obligation volutarily related to a minimum wage law as they are not required to employ anyone. My libertarian friends are going to have a conniption fit!!!
In the very last paragraph, above, I think you have finally obliterated any pretense of your being a "libertarian." Your observation that one's operating an enterprise "is a voluntary act cannot [so] we not also include a legal obligation based upon the voluntary act of the person that requires the compensation of the employee be enough to provide the basic necessities of life" is really a plea for living-wage theory, whether you would care to admit it or not. And I will reiterate my observation that some of your views appear perilously close to Marxist theory... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 5, 2014 12:56:36 GMT
In the very last paragraph, above, I think you have finally obliterated any pretense of your being a "libertarian." Your observation that one's operating an enterprise "is a voluntary act cannot [so] we not also include a legal obligation based upon the voluntary act of the person that requires the compensation of the employee be enough to provide the basic necessities of life" is really a plea for living-wage theory, whether you would care to admit it or not. And I will reiterate my observation that some of your views appear perilously close to Marxist theory...
I am not claiming that a person creates an obligation based upon operation of an enterprise. A person has a right to profit from their expenditure of labor without creating any obligations to another person. My issue is when someone is profiting from the labor of another person and not their own labor and then only in very limited cases.
For example a person might be an excellent automotive repair technician and open an auto repair business. It is a good trade and a person can easily earn more than costs for the necessities of living in today's society. They have no necessity to hire other individuals unless they want to earn even more than what they can earn with their own labor. There is nothing wrong with doing this but at the same time I can justify an obligation where they have to ensure that the automotive technicians they hire at least earn enough to live on. They cannot expect the employee to work for them if the employees basic costs of survivial are not being met by the individual's labor.
I can't rationalize an economic philosophy were "I eat lobster while you go hungry" relationship between the employer and the employee because the employer doesn't pay enough in compensation for the person to buy food. There is a problem with that economic philosophy.
What we must also understand is that there is a "Right of Property of the Person" but a person is only entitled to the "fruits of their labor' and that does not necessarily extend to the fruits of someone else's labor.
Now let's cut to the chase. We have a problem that both must admit.
If the employers don't provide adequate compensation to the employee we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure for the necessities of the worker that is incapable of providing food, shelter, or other necessities such as healht care to the employee. We simply can't let that person go hungry, be forced to live in the streets, or stand on the corner in need of medical attention that can be provided by the hospital across the street while the wealth created by the nation is far greater than that which is required to ensure that no one be hungry, homeless, or receive necessary medical services.
We have enough wealth creation annually in the United States to equal over $80,000 in income per household in America and a household requires far less than $80,000 for the basic necessities of living. All of that wealth is being created by the "workers" of America that produce the goods or provide the services that Americans consume and is paid out in "gross income" annually. There is more than enough "gross income" to ensure that everyone has food, shelter, and other necessities such as health care services. It isn't a case where we, as a nation, can't afford to ensure the necessities of everyone in the United States.
The problem is that we basically have two choices in ensuring that everyone has enough to eat, a roof over their head, and other basic necessities.
1) We can have government (i.e.tax and spend) ensure that those without the minimum income have these necessities, or; 2) We can ensure that the employers that are profiting from the labor of the worker compensate the worker so that they can afford to pay for their own basic necessities (i.e. living wage).
The problem with the first proposition (tax and spend) is that our tax codes are corrupt and impose a greater tax burden relative to income on lower income workers than on higher income non-workers in America.
The problem with the second proposition (i.e. living wage) is that it imposes a limitation on our Freedom to Exercise our Right of Economic Liberty but only related to those benefiting from the labor of another person.
Of course a person can advocate the "tax and spend" propositiom or the "living wage" proposition or a combination of both but in any case they can't simply ignore the problem completely.
So let me ask a simple question. Do you support government welfare assistance to provide for the fundamental necessities of life such as food, shelter, health care, or other assistance necessary for a working person to survive?
I've actually taken the compromise position that both are probably required which reduces both proportionatly.
As you are well aware I've made other proposals that would increase the disposable income of those earning the lowest incomes in America which would greatly reduce both the need for government assistance as well as the necessity of higher wages for the lowest paid workers in America. Basically I've tried to eliminate "funding government" as a necessity of life that would have to be considered as a part of a "living wage" paid by the employer to an employee. I've tried to strip out taxation as a necessary expenditure of the person that takes precedent over all other spending by the person to lower the "cost of living" for the person.
As a libertarian I do advocate the Right of Economic Liberty of the Person but also realize that pragmatic limitions can be imposed upon the Freedom to Exercise and Inalienable Right. That limitation does not disparage the Inalienable Right but does limit the Person's ability to exercise it. There is the caveat that any such limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right should always be to the least extent possible to achieve the protections of the Inalienable Rights of Others.
A working person living in poverty where they can't provide for their own food, housing, health care, or other basic necessities does not have Economic Liberty which is why I can rightfully claim that their Inalienable Rights are being violated. So the question really comes down to whether we can impose a very restrained limitation (obligation) upon the owners of enterprise that are using the coercion of the "law of supply and demand" related to labor to violate the Economic Liberty of the worker in a very small segment of our economy?
Or do we just impose the obligation on the taxpayers to mitigate the effects of this violation of Economic Liberty of the Person?
Tough question, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 6, 2014 1:22:19 GMT
In the very last paragraph, above, I think you have finally obliterated any pretense of your being a "libertarian." Your observation that one's operating an enterprise "is a voluntary act cannot [so] we not also include a legal obligation based upon the voluntary act of the person that requires the compensation of the employee be enough to provide the basic necessities of life" is really a plea for living-wage theory, whether you would care to admit it or not. And I will reiterate my observation that some of your views appear perilously close to Marxist theory...
I am not claiming that a person creates an obligation based upon operation of an enterprise. A person has a right to profit from their expenditure of labor without creating any obligations to another person. My issue is when someone is profiting from the labor of another person and not their own labor and then only in very limited cases.
For example a person might be an excellent automotive repair technician and open an auto repair business. It is a good trade and a person can easily earn more than costs for the necessities of living in today's society. They have no necessity to hire other individuals unless they want to earn even more than what they can earn with their own labor. There is nothing wrong with doing this but at the same time I can justify an obligation where they have to ensure that the automotive technicians they hire at least earn enough to live on. They cannot expect the employee to work for them if the employees basic costs of survivial are not being met by the individual's labor.
I can't rationalize an economic philosophy were "I eat lobster while you go hungry" relationship between the employer and the employee because the employer doesn't pay enough in compensation for the person to buy food. There is a problem with that economic philosophy.
What we must also understand is that there is a "Right of Property of the Person" but a person is only entitled to the "fruits of their labor' and that does not necessarily extend to the fruits of someone else's labor.
Now let's cut to the chase. We have a problem that both must admit.
If the employers don't provide adequate compensation to the employee we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure for the necessities of the worker that is incapable of providing food, shelter, or other necessities such as healht care to the employee. We simply can't let that person go hungry, be forced to live in the streets, or stand on the corner in need of medical attention that can be provided by the hospital across the street while the wealth created by the nation is far greater than that which is required to ensure that no one be hungry, homeless, or receive necessary medical services.
We have enough wealth creation annually in the United States to equal over $80,000 in income per household in America and a household requires far less than $80,000 for the basic necessities of living. All of that wealth is being created by the "workers" of America that produce the goods or provide the services that Americans consume and is paid out in "gross income" annually. There is more than enough "gross income" to ensure that everyone has food, shelter, and other necessities such as health care services. It isn't a case where we, as a nation, can't afford to ensure the necessities of everyone in the United States.
The problem is that we basically have two choices in ensuring that everyone has enough to eat, a roof over their head, and other basic necessities.
1) We can have government (i.e.tax and spend) ensure that those without the minimum income have these necessities, or; 2) We can ensure that the employers that are profiting from the labor of the worker compensate the worker so that they can afford to pay for their own basic necessities (i.e. living wage).
The problem with the first proposition (tax and spend) is that our tax codes are corrupt and impose a greater tax burden relative to income on lower income workers than on higher income non-workers in America.
The problem with the second proposition (i.e. living wage) is that it imposes a limitation on our Freedom to Exercise our Right of Economic Liberty but only related to those benefiting from the labor of another person.
Of course a person can advocate the "tax and spend" propositiom or the "living wage" proposition or a combination of both but in any case they can't simply ignore the problem completely.
So let me ask a simple question. Do you support government welfare assistance to provide for the fundamental necessities of life such as food, shelter, health care, or other assistance necessary for a working person to survive?
I've actually taken the compromise position that both are probably required which reduces both proportionatly.
As you are well aware I've made other proposals that would increase the disposable income of those earning the lowest incomes in America which would greatly reduce both the need for government assistance as well as the necessity of higher wages for the lowest paid workers in America. Basically I've tried to eliminate "funding government" as a necessity of life that would have to be considered as a part of a "living wage" paid by the employer to an employee. I've tried to strip out taxation as a necessary expenditure of the person that takes precedent over all other spending by the person to lower the "cost of living" for the person.
As a libertarian I do advocate the Right of Economic Liberty of the Person but also realize that pragmatic limitions can be imposed upon the Freedom to Exercise and Inalienable Right. That limitation does not disparage the Inalienable Right but does limit the Person's ability to exercise it. There is the caveat that any such limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right should always be to the least extent possible to achieve the protections of the Inalienable Rights of Others.
A working person living in poverty where they can't provide for their own food, housing, health care, or other basic necessities does not have Economic Liberty which is why I can rightfully claim that their Inalienable Rights are being violated. So the question really comes down to whether we can impose a very restrained limitation (obligation) upon the owners of enterprise that are using the coercion of the "law of supply and demand" related to labor to violate the Economic Liberty of the worker in a very small segment of our economy?
Or do we just impose the obligation on the taxpayers to mitigate the effects of this violation of Economic Liberty of the Person?
Tough question, isn't it?
For openers, I should probably note that an auto-repair tachnician possesses a real skillset; so if his prospective employer offers him substandard wages, he could simply take that skillset elsewhere. (Those who have no discernable skillset would probably do well to either go back to school or learn a trade.) Although you borrow from the Declaration of Independence whenever you speak of our "inalienable rights," I seriously doubt that the Founders intended, by that term, to mean economic entitlement. Your observation that our GDP equals over $80,000 per household in America should be irrelevant to all but statists--i.e. those who believe that the federal government has the inherent right to confiscate privately earned (or even inherited) money, and redistribute it as it sees fit. Or, as syndicated columnist George Will put it in his Washington Post column of August 11, 1999: "Democrats seem to believe this: Government frames society, providing laws, physical infrastructure and human capital (education, particularly) that fuels commerce. Therefore government is responsible for all economic outcomes, and the economy is essentially government property." It is a worldview with which I fundamentally disagree. Whenever there is a serious disconnect between what the market designates as an individual's worth to the company and what would be necessitated to provide him with a living wage, I would opt for the former, without a moment's hesitation. (By the way, how many libertarians--which is the description you offer of yourself--hew to living-wage theory, in your opinion?) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 6, 2014 13:53:35 GMT
In virtually all cases the skill-sets of the person exceed the necessary skill-sets of the employment position they hold. A common laborer is generally qualified to do much more than just provide common labor for the employer. There are excemptions of course but the exceptions occur at the top of the economic pyramid and not at the bottom.
I don't advocate for government to do that which the person should do. It is only the failure of the "person" which creates a need for government interventionism. As I noted either the employers provide enough compensation so that the person can survive (i.e. a living wage) or the government must mitigate the failures of the employers to do this (i.e. provide welfare) to ensure that the person can survive.
I happen to support the proposition that the employers should be responsible for ensuring that their employees have enough compensation to survive so that the government is not required to provide welfare assistance. That is about as anti-statist as a person can be.
I don't want the government to be responsible, I want private enterprise to be responsible.
Strange how a person can continue to support a belief that the "law of supply and demand" related to labor works in all cases when we know and can show that it doesn't. If it worked we wouldn't require government welfare assistance related to workers to mitigate the effects of the "law of supply and demand" when applied to labor as no one would be living in poverty.
The very fact that we must have government welfare assistance to provide the necessities of life for the person demonstrates that the "law of supply and demand" when applied to labor fails at the bottom of the economic pyramid. When we have 40 million working Americans that don't have enough to eat there is a serious problem with the "law of supply and demand" related to labor.
As I've also noted though we also have a serious problem with taxation where the lowest income households have the highest tax burden relative to income in the United States as that dramatically reduces their disposable income and a person lives off of their disposable income. If it wasn't for this upside-down taxation in the United States the costs to enterprise to ensure a "living wage" would be substantially less. So it's a twofold problem where over-taxation and underpayments for labor based upon market coercion leave millions of households without the necessities of life.
The final straw that breaks the camel's back is the fact that actually paying low income workers more improves the economy which benefits the enterprises that depend upon low paid labor. The overall economic effects of higher wages improves the bottom line for low paying enterprises but that is a macro-economic reality that many seem to ignore. The entire economy is actually based upon the consumption by the lowest paid workers in the economy. They are the foundation of the economic pyramid and without them the pyramid collapses. BTW I'm addressing whether a voluntary action (e.g. employing a person) can create an obligation (e.g. a living wage) with libertarians on another forum. I'm using the analogy of caring for an infant/child based upon voluntary guardianship. Either voluntary guardianship justifies the obligation of caring for the child or it doesn't. It is a perfect analogy as guardianship of a child is voluntary in the United States and we do require that the guardian provide for the necessities of the child. We create an obligation based upon a voluntary action of the person(s) related to children which would be identical to creating an obligation based upon the voluntary employment by an enterprise related to the worker. There is no difference between the two cases in principle.
|
|
