Re:Does Work Really Work?
by cortesoft on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @08:56PM
(#9036917)
There are so many ways to argue against this article. The fact that the person you responded to didn't go into as much detail as the author is just because the author spent a lot of time writing all of this nonsense down. Here are a few arguments against the author:
1) The argument that an employee is a 'slave' and 'dominated' by the employer would work the other way, as well. The author says "A worker must obey the boss, or ultimately lose the job." You could say this about the reverse, too: "A boss must obey his worker, or ultimately the worker will quit" If the boss fires the worker, the worker has to find a new job. If the worker quits, the boss has to find a new worker. Now, there are a lot of good arguments as to why the power dynamic is not equal between a worker and a boss, but it isn't an a priori fact like this author makes it seem.
2) The ideas about value are non-sensical. No one argues that things have a universal agreed upon value, nor does economics rely on that idea. Yes, the value of something varies from person to person, but that very fact is what allows an economy to function at all! If everything had equal value to everyone, then no one would ever make any transaction. The value of something TO A PARTICULAR PERSON is exactly equal to what they would be willing to trade for it. The idea that "In a barter system, for an exchange to be fair, the value of the exchanged goods and services must be equal. However, value is unknowable, therefore barter falls apart on practical grounds" is totally not true. Each person knows exactly what they are willing to trade for some good r service. In fact, this idea is non-sensical just from observation; obviously barter does not fall apart on practical grounds, because every single society on earth practices it. Put a group of people together with some goods, and a barter economy will develop. See any prison for an example.
These are just two examples of the ridiculousness of the author's argument. There are countless more.
1) The argument that an employee is a 'slave' and 'dominated' by the employer would work the other way, as well. The author says "A worker must obey the boss, or ultimately lose the job." You could say this about the reverse, too: "A boss must obey his worker, or ultimately the worker will quit" If the boss fires the worker, the worker has to find a new job. If the worker quits, the boss has to find a new worker. Now, there are a lot of good arguments as to why the power dynamic is not equal between a worker and a boss, but it isn't an a priori fact like this author makes it seem.
2) The ideas about value are non-sensical. No one argues that things have a universal agreed upon value, nor does economics rely on that idea. Yes, the value of something varies from person to person, but that very fact is what allows an economy to function at all! If everything had equal value to everyone, then no one would ever make any transaction. The value of something TO A PARTICULAR PERSON is exactly equal to what they would be willing to trade for it. The idea that "In a barter system, for an exchange to be fair, the value of the exchanged goods and services must be equal. However, value is unknowable, therefore barter falls apart on practical grounds" is totally not true. Each person knows exactly what they are willing to trade for some good r service. In fact, this idea is non-sensical just from observation; obviously barter does not fall apart on practical grounds, because every single society on earth practices it. Put a group of people together with some goods, and a barter economy will develop. See any prison for an example.
These are just two examples of the ridiculousness of the author's argument. There are countless more.