Discussion in 'General Industry Related Topics' started by occasionalhobbyist, Apr 23, 1973.
Well all I can say is that if this means Paulus is gone, I will surely miss him.
Government contracts for blowjobs to government employees. I predict a dramatic increase in civil service test attendance. (Let's save the discussion of test validity for another thread, shall we?)
Excuse me. Then change the word "Living" to "Prevailing"
I don't see how that would fit with anything I've discussed, expect possibly an objection to a minimum wage (call it a slippery slope, if you want, but the fact that we have a minimum wage in this country does not keep me up at night).
The only paradigm I see here is if hookers only gave services to government employees. That's the only group for which the Mayor can negotiate terms.
Okay, tomorrow a group that constitutes about 15% of all NYC hookers will sit down with the Mayor and negotiate a Living Escort Fee that will apply to all prostitutes and Johns engaging in sexual relations within the five boroughs. No girl will be allowed to charge less. Hows that sound? We'll call it the Fairness in Fucking Act.
I don't recall minimum wage laws being enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Maybe I'm wrong.
So you are only taking issue with the level at which I have hypothetically set the Living Escort Fee. Now there is a slippery slope if ever I have seen one.
You said you didn't think it makes sense to apply laws developed for our culture elsewhere. I think it is possible to apply some laws. Based on inalienable rights of man.
I don't. Why do you have a problem with them negotiating wages as a group?
You lost me with #2 above re Locke etc. (i.e., I don't understand your point in relation to what I said.)
Then why do you have a problem with market prices for trash collectors or third world sneaker makers?
1 - Vote. 60 percent of Americans don't. It's a system.
2 - I disagree that there are no inherent rights of mankind. See Declaration of Independence, Hobbes, Locke, etc.
1 - Fuck you. I wasn't talking to you. But yes, that was my point (about free markets being inherently imoral). And I think, if you look carefully at his posts, he's saying precisely that. He just may not know it yet.
2 - Imagine how an absolutist feels when confronted with such quandries.
It's an entirely vain attempt surely doomed to failure.
I have no problem with the market price of whores. But I do find (how odd is this?) that the establishments I tend to frequent fall in similar price ranges and have similar standards. This is also clearly a market that would benefit from transparency.
But I think you're completely missing the point. If we were to carry the analogy out with the mechanism I'm talking about, there would simply be a minimum standard wage, more like $20 per hj and $40 per BJ. Unless, of course, you were giving BJs to government workers. In which case, I imagine the prevailing wage would be $180 for BJs.
Get it yet? You're distorting my arguments. Which isn't fair. But I have free speech, until Slinky takes it away at least, with which to defend meself.
God Bless America!
Yes, but actually complying with living wage standards is purely optional. As I like to think of it, if you don't want to pay a living wage, don't take taxpayer money.
1 - While I understand that you weren't talking to me, I don't think that is a fair characterization of PJ's or my reply. Rather, I would say that the question itself was a sort of low blow debating trick, something like saying, "The Nazis were capatilist's, weren't they? So there, that proves it is an evil system." But maybe I miss your point; if it is just that free markets permit and sometimes even encourage immoral behavior, I would have to agree. (PJ can speak for himself.) I don't think anyone is claiming that there is no need for morality in a free market system.
2- Right, it really is a tough call. I can't even figure out where I come down on it. In my internal, instinctive personal morality "system" I have described (far) above in this thread, it just plain feels wrong to see pre-adolescent kids working long hours on a grueling assembly line. I would have a hard time with it if I were in charge of such a factory. On the other hand, if one backs off and analyzes, one has to acknowledge that it may be common to have kids of the same age working much harder jobs for longer hours and in worse conditions (e.g., "in the fields") in these same cultures and countries. In other words, not hiring them for factory work is likely to accomplish nothing but condemning them to an even harder life. Sad but true.
In a probably vain attempt to drag this thread back on topic, consider the question of a "Living Escort Fee" that would be set by each municipality based on an assessment of how much these good women need to earn annually to keep them in panty hose, lingerie, toys and to maintain a "suitable" standard of living. The annual amount would be adjusted for differences in cost of living and spending patterns and then divided by a desired number of sessions per year (not too many, don't want to wear them out) to develop an minimum escort fee that all Johns would be required to pay in order to engage the services of the prostitute of their choice. Say for the sake of argument, that in NYC this works out to $350 per hour.
(1) What effect do you think that Living Escort Fee would have on the ladies at Julies?
(2) What would be the effect on Sasha of NY?
(3) Would you see this arrangement as being an improvement in the illusive concept of "fairness"?
Well, I don't know how else you can characterize the concept of a "Living Wage". Its one set by fiat (no matter how many indices are used or what the rationale) by a governmental body.
I absolutely agree with you monopolies suck! And governments are one of the worst forms of monoplies. You have no choice whether to use the "product" or not. I never said that there is no place for rule of law in a Capitalist society. I'm just saying that more often than not, laws end up advantaging one group to the detriment of another. Your first clue that you are about to be screwed is any bill that comes out of Congress with the word Fairness in the title.
I think you did a pretty good job of answering your own question. It makes no sense to apply laws developed for our culture elsewhere. I think freedom of expression (i.e., the free exchange of information) is at the heart of the Capitalist system. As far as I'm concerned, activists can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they are using their own nickel (as opposed to one of Nader's publicly funded Public Interest Groups) and don't interfere with anyone else rights (e.g., shouting down company officers or other shareholders). I also think the shareholders have the absolute right to ignore them.
Look, I don't know what on earth except a stubborn desire to mischaracterize someone else's opinion leads you to think that I believe in using non-market mechanisms to set prices.
I greatly admire the resourceful fellows who greet me when I come out of the subway on a rainy night and offer me a crappy umbrella for $10. More power to them! I have no problem with people charging $10 for a bottle of water at Woodstock XXXIV! (Although since they've essentially created a monopoly and collusion for antitrust behavior in the context of a 'closed' market, that's really not the same thing.)
Let the market set the prices, I say. But let the state (through laws, passed in a democratic process) ensure some degree of fairness.
You dodged the slavery question with a slick aside about morality. How about child labor laws? Do you think companies in foreign markets should be able to apply different child labor standards than we do here in the US? (This is actually a much trickier question than it sounds, as in many emerging countries children actually provide critical support to their families.) So, do you? Do you think shareholders should? Should activists bring it to their attention? Or do you think the free market would be better served without freedom of expression?
Ironic, that's what the johns who get jealous suggest I do.
Separate names with a comma.