[jason13]

That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts.

But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.

[byrneseyeview]

And why on earth would you want to restrict the economic freedom of someone desperate enough to do that kind of work? If the money isn't worth the risk, they know it better than you do -- and if you disagree with them, it's probably because you're applying your assumptions to their situation, not that you know more about mining safety than they do.

[jason13]

I love the intellectual lengths people will goto to justify their own greed.

This is a classic argument you are making. It makes me richer to exploit workers. But if i don't exploit my workers than I will be denying my workers their economic right to be exploited.

So you see I am only exploiting my workers to help my workers, because my workers want to have the freedom to be exploited, really they want to be exploited, it makes them feel more free.

Wow I am such a nice guy. I am spreading freedom.

[lupin_sansei]

How is employing people exploiting them? (In the bad sense of the word "exploit") The employees freely agreed to come and work for you in exchange for a certain amount of money, and they are free to leave at any time.

If they were worth any more money than they were getting paid then they would change to a higher paying job.

[jason13]

Well this goes into the whole philosophical question of the word "freedom" and "free will"...

It all depends what you mean by the word "freely". But unless you are actually rich, you don't really have the freedom to not get a job. So I would not describe this as purely a contractual agreement entered into by parties freely.

[lupin_sansei]

But you could say also that the employer needs a worker, and also isn't really freely entering into the contract. Utter nonsense! Both parties freely enter into the agreement. You might not have the freedom not to have a job, but you do have the freedom to choose which job to take. That freedom means that nobody can pay you less then you are worth, else you'll leave. Therefore nobody employer can exploit you. (That is pay you less then you're worth.)

[jason13]

Since you define what someone is worth as what they are getting paid..you essentially stating a tautology.

However, I would also note that since what people get paid depends on the existance of Unions, and is also effected by the law and certain legal regulations. Then the value someone is worth changes depending on what the laws currently are.

So in any case I am in favor of trying to increase the worth of people.

(Not that this is really relevant, but most people who lead companies actually do not need their workers, they often can afford for the company to fail, and still live a comfortable life...)