May 9, 2024: The May '24 Report is up.
News: April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Both abortion protections and marijuana legalization passed in Ohio yesterday by overwhelming margins.
You mean things are only "evil" if they result in a physical change to the universe, or other people? That's sort of a... functional definition, not an existential definition.
It also means you shouldn't really call things good or evil - only harmful or benign, and to go further, as "personally harmful/benign" vs "publicly harmful/benign."
That's a difference between atheistic and theistic morality though... one is that there is an existential, fundamental "good/evil", the other is that everything is just pragmatic.
) was able to claim Irish citizenship? Like… I don’t know if it pre-dated the GFA, but… I don’t think it’s misleading from that perspective.Perhaps I should clarify that I meant in order for an employer to make a profit from an employee, they need to pay the employee less than the value the employee added through their labour.
No I understood - and I disagree. The employer can charge more than the value of the labor because the employer is adding value above what the labor provided. The labor can be fairly compensated and the employer still charge more than that. The "employer" adds brand recognition, sales channels, testing, distribution, indemnification, and all kinds of other things.
Sales price above value of labor doesn't at all have to mean they are paying the labor less than it's worth. Sure that's one way to increase profits, but it's not even a necessary condition for profit. So a statement like "an employer can only profit by underpaying for labor" is just hyperbole.
Well, in order to make a profit off someone else’s labour, you need to pay them less than their labour is worth. It’s varying degrees of horrible depending on how bad you want to be in that regard.That's... an interesting and questionable philosophy.
Consider a situation where the baseline is 1 year worth of food for 1 year worth of labor. Now say that someone other than the farmer creates a plow and now the laborer can get 2 years of food for 1 year worth of labor. Who gets the "profit" here? How do you attribute the value of the labor to the plow-maker versus the the plow-user? That is - what percentage of that extra years worth of food, goes to the plow maker versus the plow user? Do you split it 50/50? Do you give it all to the plow-maker, since the plow enabled all the marginal increase in output? Do you give it all to the plow-user, since it was that labor that actually generated the food? Is it something in between?
What if it wasn't a plow-maker, but a merchant who took some of the food and carried it around the countryside? What if the merchant had to buy the food with 1 cart of lumber? When they distribute and the food, for lumber, they end up with 2 carts of wood. The merchant had a net gain of one cart of wood... was that "stealing" from the original farmer, paying them less than their labor was worth? Or was that just getting paid for the added value associated with distributing the produce?
Does the merchant have any obligation to the farmer to give them more lumber? Should the merchant have such an obligation?
Based on..?It is almost exactly that... though.I'm anti "screw those people because they're not us!"
If you think that's what unions are about, then you're hardcore anti-union.
