OK, I'll bite at the hook in front of me. Granted, I've not been in on this
discussion, but...
John asked:
> 1) What do you consider the origin of incometo be? How is/should it be
> determined how much a worker is worth and paid?
I'd like to set my own income, actually. Seriously, though, I feel that
there are several things that must be taken into consideration. (1) The
skill level of the worker (this is not always subject to a reduction to
numbers, thus the amount of experience can substitute to a limited degree),
(2) The average pay for other workers in similar positions (there are lots
of different private groups that collect this data - I can get a telcom
industry breakdown current as of 3 months ago from my HR department within
about 1 week), (3) The cost of living in your area as compared to a national
average (Our HR department actually does all this math for us) and (4) The
number of people competing for the job (this isn't official policy at my
company, but if you're making hiring choices and you see 300 resumes for one
position, you can feel secure that you can lowball your offer).
> 2) Do you believe that an individual has a right to a job that pays a
> certain wage? Do you believe that this right carries any
responsibilities?
It's my personal belief (not based upon any empirical data) that a worker in
a society deserves a living wage, that is, an income from full-time
employment that allows her to support herself and her family. This connects
with adequate, safe low-income housing and affordable, reliable public
transportation. Having worked at a minimum-wage job in Austin, I can tell
you that it's darn hard to meet that in Austin. The responsibilities are
the same as for every job: show up on time, work hard, etc.
> 3) What is the correct moral decision in the following situation:
> You regularly purchase lightbulbs from Stan, a light-bulb maker, for $6 a
> bulb.
>
> Mark, who is currently unemployed, figures that he can make a lightbulb
for
> $4, sell them for $5, and make everyone better off.
>
> Assume that you are the only buyer of lightbulbs in the economy.
>
> A) Continue to purchase from Stan at $6 a lightbulb, and leave Mark
> unemployed for another month.
>
> B) Purchase from Mark, making him employed this month, but making Stan
> unemployed this month.
>
> Again, what is the correct moral choice?
I'd choose (B), assuming Mark makes lightbulbs of similar quality. If
Mark's lightbulbs only last 1/2 as long as Stan's, then I'm buying Stan's.
Also, I would like to know: in the land of Hypothetica, is there a safety
net in the form of public or private assistance to individuals that are
unemployed? This may affect how I answer additional questions that I *know*
will be coming.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
