Hacker News Reader

Comment by clarkmoody | Hacker News Reader

Your first point is refuted by your second point...

According to you, Walmart employees cannot support themselves, even though we have a raft of labor protections. Walmart is not subverting any labor laws, as far as I can tell.

As to your point about minimum wage: how does increasing the cost of labor ensure that more people will have work? When you are unemployed, you cannot support yourself.

The bottom line is that when two parties enter into a contract voluntarily, that should be the end of the matter.

View on HN

> The bottom line is that when two parties enter into a contract voluntarily, that should be the end of the matter.

That is a very black and white view; real life has a certain nuance that just isn't captured by blanket statements like this.

You'll miss things if you limit yourself to a single level of abstraction: while it makes sense to the two parties to look at it like that, there is also a larger-scale, societal interest that certain sorts of contracts not be allowed. Thus, society makes rules about contracts and employment. For example, we ban slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor because as a society, we've determined that those are exploitive (even if you can get children who would willingly work for you, or people who would sell themselves to you).

These sorts of laws are what make us a society. For an example of a what happens without them, take a look at Somalia.

> As to your point about minimum wage: how does increasing the cost of labor ensure that more people will have work? When you are unemployed, you cannot support yourself.

Increasing the cost of labor ensures labor can support itself. If a job doesn't exist, the social safety net steps in and ensures you can survive. That's how every other first world country works.

As a citizen, you have basic rights. As a corporation, you do not. A citizen is entitled to survival, a corporation is not entitled to cheap labor.

Unfortunately this means that power differentials between employer/employee will be highly exploitable.

Should people be allowed to sign contracts to enter into slavery? How about two criminals entering a voluntary contract to never betray each other. Would testifying against a criminal partner then be a compensatable contract breach?

Current US law says no. If two parties have unequal leverage (you need a job to survive, the company does not need you) there is an implicit structural coercion. That suggests it's not possible for two parties to actually "voluntarily" enter an agreement, as one is being coerced by bills/kids/health insurance, without an equal balance on the other side of the scale.

The bottom line is that one cannot completely enter into a voluntary contract with these entities, as there is an imbalance of power wider than the Grand Canyon.

Tell me, how many Uber drivers are able to negotiate with Uber on the cut Uber takes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com