5 ms·

Someone is not worth $50/hr if someone else is willing to do the same job with equal capability for $5/hr.

gamblor956 6y ago
There is a difference between someone being worth $50/hour and another person willing to do whatever for just $5/hour. For example, rich kids can take unpaid internships because they don't have to worry about food or rent for the duration of internships. Poor kids can't usually afford to take jobs that don't pay.
- lukevdp 6y ago
  I am not talking about the intrinsic worth of a human. I’m talking about the price of their labor. Someone’s labor being worth $50 or $5 is a function of supply and demand.
- frogpelt 6y ago
  I'm guessing poor kids usually don't have jobs at all. Only about 40% of poor people 18-64 even have jobs.
  - burfog 6y ago
    The minimum wage workers around here are of two types: 1. teenage children of the upper middle class or higher 2. poor adults with a history of bad decisions It's kind of a weird mix. Where are the children of the poor? You'd think they might want money much more than the children of better-off families do. Surgeons, business owners, passenger jet pilots, software developers, and corporate executives all send their teenagers off to work minimum wage jobs. The point seems to be to learn about answering to a boss and/or to learn why success in school is important.
    - gorgoiler 6y ago
      Where are the children of the poor? The ice cream parlor in Sausalito is run by (and frequented by) the children (and parents) of one class? The Denny’s in Excelsior by that of another?
    - magicnubs 6y ago
      I'm not sure where you live, but my experience has been the complete opposite. When I was a poor working kid nearly every other poor kid I knew in high school started working at 16. Some of my friends from wealthy families did as well, but not nearly as many and usually only during the summer and not during the school year. Most did not have their first job (not including internships) until after college.
chc 6y ago
The parent was comparing the value a worker brings to the company against the worker's compensation. To illustrate how the worth of a transaction can be different from the cost: If I offer to give you a $50 bill in exchange for a $5 bill, is that bill not worth $50 just because I lost on the deal?
- gwright 6y ago
  I would certainly value that piece of paper at $50 but apparently you value it at something less than $5 because you are willing to accept $5 for it. I haven't a clue as to why you would value it at less than $5, perhaps you get some entertainment value in giving away money? This doesn't seem like a particularly helpful illustration.
  - chc 6y ago
    You arrived at the conclusion that something can be worth more than you paid for it, which is the point I was trying to illustrate (because the person I was replying to assumed that the lowest price you can pay = worth). So it seems like the illustration did its job to me.
- lukevdp 6y ago
  Yes but it is wrong to do so because wages are not set only by the worth a worker is to a company. That is only one side of the equation (demand). The labour market also have a supply side component which is the ability for the company to find labour.
  - danenania 6y ago
    You seem to be refuting a claim that no one made. We aren't only talking about wages, but the amount of value the worker contributes to the company. The latter is typically significantly higher than the former. In a profitable company, this is true by definition (at least on average across all the company's employees). Another way to look at it is: what is the maximum a company could conceivably pay for a particular role, even if that amount was way above the market rate? That number would presumably be a bit below the value that role is expected to contribute.

There is a difference between someone being worth $50/hour and another person willing to do whatever for just $5/hour. For example, rich kids can take unpaid internships because they don't have to worry about food or rent for the duration of internships. Poor kids can't usually afford to take jobs that don't pay.

lukevdp 6y ago
I am not talking about the intrinsic worth of a human. I’m talking about the price of their labor. Someone’s labor being worth $50 or $5 is a function of supply and demand.
frogpelt 6y ago
I'm guessing poor kids usually don't have jobs at all. Only about 40% of poor people 18-64 even have jobs.
- burfog 6y ago
  The minimum wage workers around here are of two types: 1. teenage children of the upper middle class or higher 2. poor adults with a history of bad decisions It's kind of a weird mix. Where are the children of the poor? You'd think they might want money much more than the children of better-off families do. Surgeons, business owners, passenger jet pilots, software developers, and corporate executives all send their teenagers off to work minimum wage jobs. The point seems to be to learn about answering to a boss and/or to learn why success in school is important.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    Where are the children of the poor? The ice cream parlor in Sausalito is run by (and frequented by) the children (and parents) of one class? The Denny’s in Excelsior by that of another?
  - magicnubs 6y ago
    I'm not sure where you live, but my experience has been the complete opposite. When I was a poor working kid nearly every other poor kid I knew in high school started working at 16. Some of my friends from wealthy families did as well, but not nearly as many and usually only during the summer and not during the school year. Most did not have their first job (not including internships) until after college.

chc 6y ago

The parent was comparing the value a worker brings to the company against the worker's compensation. To illustrate how the worth of a transaction can be different from the cost: If I offer to give you a $50 bill in exchange for a $5 bill, is that bill not worth $50 just because I lost on the deal?

gwright 6y ago
I would certainly value that piece of paper at $50 but apparently you value it at something less than $5 because you are willing to accept $5 for it. I haven't a clue as to why you would value it at less than $5, perhaps you get some entertainment value in giving away money? This doesn't seem like a particularly helpful illustration.
- chc 6y ago
  You arrived at the conclusion that something can be worth more than you paid for it, which is the point I was trying to illustrate (because the person I was replying to assumed that the lowest price you can pay = worth). So it seems like the illustration did its job to me.
lukevdp 6y ago
Yes but it is wrong to do so because wages are not set only by the worth a worker is to a company. That is only one side of the equation (demand). The labour market also have a supply side component which is the ability for the company to find labour.
- danenania 6y ago
  You seem to be refuting a claim that no one made. We aren't only talking about wages, but the amount of value the worker contributes to the company. The latter is typically significantly higher than the former. In a profitable company, this is true by definition (at least on average across all the company's employees). Another way to look at it is: what is the maximum a company could conceivably pay for a particular role, even if that amount was way above the market rate? That number would presumably be a bit below the value that role is expected to contribute.