Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Please don't fib. You thanked a comment that said "That's the opposite of exploitation". Basic economics tells us that is wrong unless there is a wage based on perfect competition.

You herd with nonsense, as usual.

 

I'm not fibbing. Nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job.

 

Tut tut, you still can't be honest. You thanked a comment that said "that's the opposite of exploitation". We know, theoretically and empirically, that is wrong. Keep fibbing if it helps mind you!

 

I'm not fibbing at all. I think you just don't like to hear what I'm saying. Nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job. You won't address my point. You will simply do another ad hom.

 

/facepalmslap

Your sarcasm detector is broken. You really shouldn't jump into the.middle of a conversation without understaunder context.

"Do you understand?"

 

Super. So you acknowledge the stupidity of the "that's the opposite of exploitation" comment then?

 

Shame you can't make sense mind you...

 

As predicted. Ad hom. You never disappoint.

 

Happy for you to refer to the sense in that comment! Good luck

 

Not really.

Nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job.

 

So you accept the "that's the opposite of exploitation" comment willynilly? You don't question it?

 

Yes, accepting a job is the opposite of exploitation. Nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job.

 

This is a cretinous position, given those that say there is exploitaiton, by definition, refer to acceptance of a job. Crikey, think!

 

But the fact remains that nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job.

 

You haven't factored in the 'exploitation' comment. You have to assume wages exhibit zero economic rents. That would be stupidity.

 

I have factored in the exploitation comment. Nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job. Hence, they are not being exploited. They are doing something they want to do.

 

Wait!

Are you saying that value is...*gulp*...

SUBJECTIVE?!?!?!???

 

Lol. They don't get the fact that people take a job because they WANT to. They aren't being exploited because they WANT to have the job.

 

To put the term exploited in proper context, there exists a choice by which the individual can choose to be exploited relative to the value they provide the society in which they live OR they can choose to exploit the society in which they live, bought and paid for by the politicians who gainfully exploit them.

 

You've maintained the blinkered approach, nothing more. Economic rents of course can be seen as a form of theft...

 

There is no theft occurring. Nobody accepts a job unless that job makes him better off than not taking the job. Hence, they are not being exploited nor being stolen from.

 

Economic rent is a form of theft. You can of course sit on your hands and pretend otherwise, but it's not consistent with an outcome based purely on exchange.

 

No property of the worker is being taken, so there is no theft.

 

I'm not surprised that you're prepared to ignore economic rent. It's of course one of the main reasons fake libertarianism is funded by the rich...

 

No property of the worker is being taken, so there is no theft. However, feel free to describe this economic rent you keep talking about.