Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
Are you of the opinion that the sole employee is on even negotiating footing with his or her employer?

Please define "unnaturally" and "large power" as used in this context.
I am. Practically speaking, in a situation where there are multiple employers in need of such a person, that person should be able to bargain for a competitive wage.

But even if it were a monopoly and only one company in town wanted him, it is still difficult for that company to rip him off because of substitution. For example, if the sole person has a skill which can be applied to other trades, then substituting employers have need of him. In a well developed free market this causes kind of a barrier against exploitative wages ever emerging.

This concept can be seen in the united states by the fact that, by default, a person's time is worth 7-10 dollars an hour. No skills, no nothing. Just based on the supply of labor next to the demand for it, 7 to 10 dollars. There are engineers in Cambodia that make like 2-3 dollars an hour, people with years of university education and internships on top. Basically as an economy emerges and develops, a sort of natural minimum wage develops. Ever notice how almost no one gets paid the minimum wage in America after it hasn't been raised for a while? Before the jump to 7.25, very few people made 5.15 an hour. McDonald's and other salaries were often over 6. I made 5.50 at the movie theater. A low minimum wage is effectively no minimum wage, so that's why you never see rightwingers demanding a repeal of the minimum wage, if they're smart they know that the best way not to have one is not to update the old one.


I got off track here, but to answer your question, the only unnaturally large power that disrupts the employer/employee bargaining relationship is government. Or really any coercive body. It could just be a big gangster dude that threatens either of them with a baseball bat if they don't pay/accept the wage.