@crcruz3 said:
@Judakel said:
@crcruz3 said:
@Judakel said:
@crcruz3 said:
@Judakel said:
@crcruz3 said:
You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.
Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?
I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.
It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.
I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.
All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.
I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.
An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.
If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.
Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.
Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.
Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.
By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.
I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.
You assume a lot of things.
Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.
I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.
Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.
Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?
As I said, you assume too much.
By the way, do you and your rich friends realize Walter Block also thinks the income disparity between blacks and whites is due to blacks being lazy? I wouldn't put it past what seems like a cadre of exploiting compadres, but I am just wondering.
Log in to comment