If someone's work is worth much more than they are being paid, the textbook says that in a free society a competing business has an incentive to profit by luring the worker away from the current employer with a higher wage. Here is a slightly modified version of istara's statement: "If your skills were valuable enough to be worth paying for, someone would be willing to pay for them." In this form the statement is not merely true, but tautological. How else would we know your skills are valuable except that someone is willing to pay for them? Surely not simply because some outsider who is not willing to employ you says so. None of this guarantees that any particular worker maximizes their potential income, any more than a given business necessarily maximizes profit. In a free society workers have the opportunity to maximize their income, by selling their labor at the best price they can get. [N.b. by "paid" I mean "compensated financially or otherwise."]Really? Isn't that why we outlawed slavery?
Someone around here said that slavery was outlawed because the most basic human right is the right of self-determination. Not simply because slavery is unpaid.
Well, you ignored my next statement, "Because those with power used it to exploit those without". Kind of a difference. Exploitation happens in many ways, and not just forcible slavery. If your skills are valuable, either someone is going to pay for them, or they are going to steal them; it only depends which method is more expeditious.
I don't understand what that statement contributes. We all agree that slavery was properly condemned, it hardly matters why.If your skills are valuable, either someone is going to pay for them,
and everybody benefits,or they are going to steal them
and we call it theft, and it is coercive and wrong by definition.