Distributive Justice (1 Viewer)

[Meistro1]

Distributive Justice

My grandparents used to tell me that I didn't know the value of a dollar and it took me years to realize how right they were. The truth of the matter is the value of a dollar depends very much on who you are. When I was a kid a dollar was nothing; just money to be spent. Living at home with no fixed expenses I could afford to toss it away on food, drinks, drugs, whatever. When I moved out I continued with that sort of attitude and rapidly ended up busto. When you look in your cupboard and all you find is japense rice you don't even know how to cook (you have to wash it?), you learn the value of a dollar fast.

What I'm getting at here is that in that situation, when you have nothing, a dollar is worth alot to you. When you have hundreds, or thousands of dollars it's worth less. You can still buy the same goods and services with it but they mean alot more to you. They make you alot happier. This is the entire concept behind distributive justice. A man who makes a million dollars can well afford to give fifty or one hundred thousand dollars to his fellow man who has made nothing. This money, which to the millionaire would mean maybe an extra jet-ski or more likely just more money (from an investment), can mean a decent meal or housing to the man with nothing. The value of having a roof over your head is much greater than having a few extra dollars or a jetski.

Some people look at welfare and think that it's not fair. They think the recipients on welfare are taking advantage of the system and their hard work. The truth is people fall on hard times and can't find a job. Some people have emotional / mental problems that interfere with their economic life. Some people get unlucky. Our social safety net allows for the humane treatment of the less fortunate. It provides a great benefit (to the recipient) at a relatively low cost (to the tax payer) especially when compared to the value it provides.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I absolutley agree with you.

Problem is, here in Australia (sorry I don't know about the U.S) we hand out money without re-educating, or training our unemployed. This means that we don't effectively break the cycle of poverty, because the unemployed aren't given new skills to allow them to re-enter the job market.

For example, here in Australia we have the "work for the dole program". Basically dole recipients have to do community service type work to earn their pay. Now this type of work may make us employed people happy that unemployed are doing something, but at the end of the day it's not productive.

I would happily have my taxpayers dollars going to welfare schemes were the unemployed are also given a chance to earn new skills, or training, thus breaking the cycle of dependence. That is helping someone.

 

[FallingPianos]

The truth of the matter is the value of a dollar depends very much on who you are. When I was a kid a dollar was nothing; just money to be spent. Living at home with no fixed expenses I could afford to toss it away on food, drinks, drugs, whatever.

my experience was just the opposite. When I was a kid, I could make a quarter a day for keeping my room clean. earning a dollar took 4 days, so a dollar meant a lot to me. the time it would take to save enough money to buy something cool made saving my money not worth it, so I would just use it to buy candy. but candy was a lot more valuable to me as a kid than it is now, because I had to work harder to get it.

 

[Iriemon]

Some people look at welfare and think that it's not fair. They think the recipients on welfare are taking advantage of the system and their hard work. The truth is people fall on hard times and can't find a job. Some people have emotional / mental problems that interfere with their economic life. Some people get unlucky. Our social safety net allows for the humane treatment of the less fortunate. It provides a great benefit (to the recipient) at a relatively low cost (to the tax payer) especially when compared to the value it provides.

Unrestricted laissez-fair capitalism can be an extremely harsh system, and I am all for social programs and nets to help improve the lot of those who aren't the "winners".

On the other hand, an over-generous system can disincentivize people to work. There were definitely aspects of this in the welfare system, a lot of which were addressed in the '97 reform act. It is a careful line to be drawn between systems that help those who need it, and a system that encourages or rewards slackers, which IMO is counter-productive even to those it is meant to help.

 

[alphamale]

Distributive Justice

My grandparents used to tell me that I didn't know the value of a dollar and it took me years to realize how right they were. The truth of the matter is the value of a dollar depends very much on who you are. When I was a kid a dollar was nothing; just money to be spent. Living at home with no fixed expenses I could afford to toss it away on food, drinks, drugs, whatever. When I moved out I continued with that sort of attitude and rapidly ended up busto. When you look in your cupboard and all you find is japense rice you don't even know how to cook (you have to wash it?), you learn the value of a dollar fast.

What I'm getting at here is that in that situation, when you have nothing, a dollar is worth alot to you. When you have hundreds, or thousands of dollars it's worth less. You can still buy the same goods and services with it but they mean alot more to you. They make you alot happier. This is the entire concept behind distributive justice. A man who makes a million dollars can well afford to give fifty or one hundred thousand dollars to his fellow man who has made nothing. This money, which to the millionaire would mean maybe an extra jet-ski or more likely just more money (from an investment), can mean a decent meal or housing to the man with nothing. The value of having a roof over your head is much greater than having a few extra dollars or a jetski.

Some people look at welfare and think that it's not fair. They think the recipients on welfare are taking advantage of the system and their hard work. The truth is people fall on hard times and can't find a job. Some people have emotional / mental problems that interfere with their economic life. Some people get unlucky. Our social safety net allows for the humane treatment of the less fortunate. It provides a great benefit (to the recipient) at a relatively low cost (to the tax payer) especially when compared to the value it provides.

Why do you call your plan distributive justice? My definition of justice is rendering to people their merited rewards or punishments. Many people are willing to make provision for the poor through the government, but the correct operative word is charity, not "justice". Nobody owes you a damn thing just because you are alive - justice is not involved.

 

[alphamale]

Unrestricted laissez-fair capitalism can be an extremely harsh system, and I am all for social programs and nets to help improve the lot of those who aren't the "winners".

Since "Unrestricted laissez-fair capitalism" has never existed, give me your theoretical reasons for the claim of "harsh". I assert quite the contrary to be true - it is all the varieties of statism that produce the most "losers".

]

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Since "Unrestricted laissez-fair capitalism" has never existed, give me your theoretical reasons for the claim of "harsh".

So, you're claiming that although there has never been a single example of your utopian socio-economic theory in practice, it is obviously going to be better than the system we have now and any other possible system we might implement?

I remember another dismally failed political ideology whose supporters displayed the same attitude.

 

[Iriemon]

Since "Unrestricted laissez-fair capitalism" has never existed, give me your theoretical reasons for the claim of "harsh". I assert quite the contrary to be true - it is all the varieties of statism that produce the most "losers".

It is built into the profit incentive. Profits are enhanced when costs of production are held to a minimum. In situations were you have little restrictions to use of labor (ie unskilled or low skilled), and an abundant supply of labor, business will attempt to lower the price they pay for labor as low as possible, to the point where the wage paid is below poverty or even subsistance level. It also benefits business to have people work as many hours as possible, and use the cheapest form of labor available. The combination of these incentives and factors will lead to the sweatshop environments that were commonplace before the labor movement and labor laws that developed earlier this century.

Maybe working 14 hour days 6 days a week for $2.5 an hour sounds sounds idyllicto you. Most would call it harsh, I think.

Why do you think business want immigrant labor? They will work for dirt cheap because they are desparate.

 

[alphamale]

So, you're claiming that although there has never been a single example of your utopian socio-economic theory in practice, it is obviously going to be better than the system we have now and any other possible system we might implement?

I remember another dismally failed political ideology whose supporters displayed the same attitude.

You have no problem with the other poster claiming it's "harsh" "although there has never been a single example of your utopian socio-economic theory in practice"? To put it at a level you may be able to understand: What have been the "harsh" societies, those with mixed-economy near-capitalism (U.S., U.K., France, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore) or those with the various levels of socialism or statism (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea)? The answer is obvious.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You have no problem with the other poster claiming it's "harsh"...

Point well taken. I misread you and I apologize.

 

[alphamale]

It is built into the profit incentive. Profits are enhanced when costs of production are held to a minimum. In situations were you have little restrictions to use of labor (ie unskilled or low skilled), and an abundant supply of labor, business will attempt to lower the price they pay for labor as low as possible, to the point where the wage paid is below poverty or even subsistance level. It also benefits business to have people work as many hours as possible, and use the cheapest form of labor available. The combination of these incentives and factors will lead to the sweatshop environments that were commonplace before the labor movement and labor laws that developed earlier this century.

Maybe working 14 hour days 6 days a week for $2.5 an hour sounds sounds idyllicto you. Most would call it harsh, I think.

Why do you think business want immigrant labor? They will work for dirt cheap because they are desparate.

You sound like an old-style Bolshevik, circa 1935. Your view of the determination of wages is simplistic. If what you say is true, why doesn't every company pay every worker the minimum wage? After all, there is 5% of the workforce unemployed - why doesn't every company say to their workers: "Thereare millions of unemployed who would like your job - take a 50% paycut or shove off." The answer is there isn't an "abundant supply of labor" in very many jobs that require any skill. This is true from the nuclear physicist all the way down to the hamburger flipper who has experience preferred to the one who doesn't. Why do very many companies give benefits? Because they're charitable? Because the government makes them? Nooooo .... it's because it's necessary to attract and keep the people they need. Of course business will try to minimize it's costs, but workers try to maximize their pay - if this employer won't pay them what they're worth, they'll go elsewhere. There's no evidence at all that the equilibrium of these market forces will be the subsistence level - that's just communist cant.

The claim about the sweatshops is Dickensonian mythology. The people who worked in "sweatshops" weren't marched to work at bayonet point. They were there because the standard of living was higher than the alternatives, mostly rural farm work. The same is true of theird world factories that uninformed libs make such a big deal about. As companies profit, they make more investment in capital equipment per worker. This makes a worker more productive, and more valuable in the labor market. It was the gradual build up of capital that allowed the growth in wages of workers - unions has little to do with it. Fewer workers are unionized than in the last 40 years - yet the sweatshops haven't reappeared.

As for immigrant labor, that represents a conspiracy between the government and certain businesses - the companies break the law, and the government winks and lets then get away with it. Of course bad things happen when such illegal conspiracies occur.

 

[Iriemon]

You sound like an old-style Bolshevik, circa 1935. Your view of the determination of wages is simplistic. If what you say is true, why doesn't every company pay every worker the minimum wage?

They do in situations were there is an abundant labor supply where there are little restrictions on the use of labor. How much do migrant workers, household maids, and the like make?

After all, there is 5% of the workforce unemployed - why doesn't every company say to their workers: "Thereare millions of unemployed who would like your job - take a 50% paycut or shove off." The answer is there isn't an "abundant supply of labor" in very many jobs that require any skill.

I didn't say there was an abundant labor supply currently.

This is true from the nuclear physicist all the way down to the hamburger flipper who has experience preferred to the one who doesn't. Why do very many companies give benefits?

Why do many not give benefits? There are millions of workers who don't even have basic health insurance because their employer doens't provide it. Why not?

Because they're charitable? Because the government makes them? Nooooo .... it's because it's necessary to attract and keep the people they need. Of course business will try to minimize it's costs, but workers try to maximize their pay - if this employer won't pay them what they're worth, they'll go elsewhere. There's no evidence at all that the equilibrium of these market forces will be the subsistence level - that's just communist cant.

Every read about what happened during the great depression?

The claim about the sweatshops is Dickensonian mythology. The people who worked in "sweatshops" weren't marched to work at bayonet point. They were there because the standard of living was higher than the alternatives,

The alternative being starving to death.

mostly rural farm work. The same is true of theird world factories that uninformed libs make such a big deal about. As companies profit, they make more investment in capital equipment per worker. This makes a worker more productive, and more valuable in the labor market. It was the gradual build up of capital that allowed the growth in wages of workers - unions has little to do with it. Fewer workers are unionized than in the last 40 years - yet the sweatshops haven't reappeared.

Maybe because it is against the law. You have to pay time and a half over 40 hours, one of those liberal programs that greatly helped the working conditions of millions.

As for immigrant labor, that represents a conspiracy between the government and certain businesses - the companies break the law, and the government winks and lets then get away with it. Of course bad things happen when such illegal conspiracies occur.

Maybe the law should be enforced. Why has it not been?