I don't agree with the way you're divvying up the value creation to different stakeholders.
The employee combined with the employer are jointly generating $15/hour, and it's impossible to do attribution from an armchair. We just know that the entire company - the cyborg of labor/execs/machinery/land/IP/relationships/etc - is jointly producing that revenue.
Maybe the employer bought some expensive machinery that the employee relies on, has exclusive and cultivated relationships, rents expensive land, etc.
It's therefore presumptive to assert that the employer is contributing only $5/hour to that entire process. They're contributing $5/hour in wages, plus all the other stuff they bring to the table (machinery etc).
"You're arguing that the radical power imbalance shouldn't be addressed because that that radical power imbalance can be exploited."
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the radical power imbalance doesn't even exist, at least insofar as it is causally related to wages.
Unskilled labor is a fungible commodity just like table salt. That is how labor is priced. Supply and demand. Not power. There's no power structure that's dictating that house cleaners only get $20/hour. I hire a house cleaner for $20/hour because there's an over-supply of house cleaners.
"What's so wrong with paying a fair wage for fair work?"
I believe market prices for labor are fair, by definition, in that they reflect actual supply and demand.
If you think power determines prices, I can see why you would come to a different conclusion. But I believe power is causally mostly irrelevant here, which is why I'm at my conclusion.
Added bonus that market prices tends to lead to optimal resource allocation (barring negative externalities).
"And China's income disparity is getting worse."
I'm not trying to argue it's perfect over there. But there's no disputing that China's economic growth over the last 30 years has caused an incredible humanitarian outcome, which is inconsistent with an exploitation narrative.
The employee combined with the employer are jointly generating $15/hour, and it's impossible to do attribution from an armchair. We just know that the entire company - the cyborg of labor/execs/machinery/land/IP/relationships/etc - is jointly producing that revenue.
Maybe the employer bought some expensive machinery that the employee relies on, has exclusive and cultivated relationships, rents expensive land, etc.
It's therefore presumptive to assert that the employer is contributing only $5/hour to that entire process. They're contributing $5/hour in wages, plus all the other stuff they bring to the table (machinery etc).
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the radical power imbalance doesn't even exist, at least insofar as it is causally related to wages.Unskilled labor is a fungible commodity just like table salt. That is how labor is priced. Supply and demand. Not power. There's no power structure that's dictating that house cleaners only get $20/hour. I hire a house cleaner for $20/hour because there's an over-supply of house cleaners.
I believe market prices for labor are fair, by definition, in that they reflect actual supply and demand.If you think power determines prices, I can see why you would come to a different conclusion. But I believe power is causally mostly irrelevant here, which is why I'm at my conclusion.
Added bonus that market prices tends to lead to optimal resource allocation (barring negative externalities).
I'm not trying to argue it's perfect over there. But there's no disputing that China's economic growth over the last 30 years has caused an incredible humanitarian outcome, which is inconsistent with an exploitation narrative.