Peter wrote:
On 5/31/2010 8:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:


I was answering a question ("How does that change the basic fact
that anyone in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for?").

My point was that, due to government interference, there are
restrictions on hiring, both on the putative employer and the
prospective employee. These restrictions can prevent a willing
employer and a willing employee from negotiating a mutually
beneficial arrangement.

How can you assume that such a negotiation would always be mutually
beneficial? For example, let's say that you are an employer, owning
lots of assets, offering 20 jobs with 100s of workers already on your
payroll, and I am an unemployed, hungry, person about to be evicted
for non-payment of rent. I am desperate for money and you are not
desperate to hire, just looking to ramp up your production. You are
in an excellent position to take advantage of me and pay me less than
I deserve, enabling me to pay my rent but only afford unhealthy high
fat junk food unless there are "government restrictions" on you that
get us closer to parity in our negotiations.

Deserve? ("To be entitled to; to have earned; to be worthy of")

At the least, you are not "entitled" to my money, nor have you yet "earned"
it. You may be "worthy" of it in someone's eyes, but mine are the only ones
that count.




Many of the "restrictions" you decry came about to address the
completely unequal relationship between employers and employees going
back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. If you do not know
what I am talking about, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, read
about child labor, or about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and the
horrific sweatshop conditions that those employees had no power to
affect, etc. Your perspective is idealistic and theoretical, but has
not been shown to be accurate in practice (reference: actual
history).

Not accurate? Ever buy a loaf of bread?