Question about market value of labor and utilitarianism

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, so this question popped into my head for some odd reason and I wanted someone with a bit more knowledge on utilitarianism to go over it a bit.

The Premise: When we have the value of labor tied in a capitalistic fashion, we have situations where labor can be expensive if there is relatively little labor to the amount of jobs or in the case of unskilled jobs currently, high supply of laborers but too little jobs which makes the price labor very cheap. Assume that there is no minimum wage or labor unions.

If the situation becomes really bad with tons of laborers and very little jobs, the amount of money paid for some jobs, some may argue, will become less than the required amount to live properly within society (grocery stacker isn't worth a $20,000 salary). By itself, this means that collectively, the value of a laborer is not enough to even justify letting it live.

Conversely, in order to increase the value of laborers and the amount they would get paid, you would need to thin out the numbers in order for laborers to be able to have more leverage in job salary (why bother negotiating if there are thousands others lining up for the job right?).

My question: Would utilitarianism say that it would be ok to murder a large percent of the labor workforce in order to increase labor wages to the point of personal self sustainability or would utilitarianism say that preserving the lives of all those laborers would be maximizing utility even if this means that collectively they all suffer a great deal?

Thanks for answering my hastily thought out 1:20 AM question based on the briefest of knowledge on economics and utilitarianism.

[Kralizec]

I once had a discussion with someone, and because I felt like being a prick, I argued that it would be permissable for a group of 4-5 persons to collectively own a slave. Provided that they fed the slave well; it freed them from a lot of work and would increase their happiness; whereas the slave would get used to his status sooner or later and his unhappiness would be less than the happiness it would provide to his masters.

However utilitarians would argue that the sum wouldn't add up, and that slavery (and large scale murder, like you propose) would always cause more suffering than happiness. One reason cited is that a lot of people wouldn't be able to enjoy themselves if their welfare was based on slavery, genocide and whatnot.

[Papewaio]

How long does it take to raise a person from birth to a entry level job to then train and/or gain experience into a skilled job?

vs

How long does it take to train someone from a defunct job to an entry level job to then train and/or gain experience into a skilled job?

Also is the worth of a person just their job or are there other parts of the person that have utility to society? Essentially this is equating citizenship with corporate membership. Work for a corporation or cease to exist. One would also have to face the very real threat of revolt from the peoples loved ones and those who see it as an injustice to kill people based on a perceived monetary worth.

Even in this extreme case isn't having a pool of unskilled labourers useful in helping out tradesmen and/or creating a pool of apprentices and/or being a pool of able bodied people who can be drawn upon to defend the country? The amount of jobs people transition through in life and the skill sets they bring from one job to another are a strength in creating a roboust economy that can handle change as it reflects the people who are highly mobile.

[econ21]

If you have more workers, you will have more work done and more things produced. Total utility will be higher. Fewer workers, due to diminishing marginal productivity of labour, may increase average utility but lower total utility. Utilitarianism will favor the former. There is a variant of utilitarianism that focuses on maximising average utility. For a constant population, total and average utility coincide. However, maxisimising average utility usually only features when discussing population policy and "potential" people. It is one way out of what the philosopher Derek Parfit has called the "repugnant conclusion" that one ought to keep breeding until everyone is on subsistence income, as that will maximise total utility. There may be preferable ways of escaping that conclusion - for example, positing that we have limited obligations to "potential" people. We probably ought to avoid mass murder of actual ones.

[Major Robert Dump]

AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT WE SHOULD EAT PRISONERS AND OLD PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WILL SAVE MONEY

LEAVE THE HANDICAPPED ALONE BECAUSE THEY ARE LOVABLE AND MAKE US FEEL BETTER ABOUT OURSELVES

[Don Corleone]

I'm unsure whether the OP is tied more closely to economic policy/labor policy or to Utilitarianism. Which is the goal and which is the tool?

If you're on about the value of labor in a market... wouldn't it just be easier to enforce existing immigration laws, which would allow the price of labor for some forms of labor to a point that it would balance? People say "Americans won't do these jobs...." What they're leaving out with the ellipsis is "...at these wages.". If people could make $30,000 gardening or washing dishes, then they would.

If your point is more geared towards utilitarianism, as others have said above, you need to assess ultimate cost and ultimate effectivity, not instantaneous.

[Montmorency]

We cannot quantify happiness or suffering. Pick something else.

[Subotan]

You're assuming that there's no unemployment. Eventually, wages will decrease to the point where it is no longer worthwhile for the individual to work, instead relying on unemployment benefit. This will cause the supply of labour to contract until the point wherein wages will rise so that it becomes rational to work again. This is the case even without unemployment benefit, with crime playing the role of benefits.

/Economist's Argument.

If you want, I could probably argue back from a utilitarian's perspective, if you want to keep the debate more philosophical rather than economical.

[HoreTore]

We cannot quantify happiness or suffering. Pick something else.

Everything can be quantified!!! Just ask any external consultant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I once had a discussion with someone, and because I felt like being a prick, I argued that it would be permissable for a group of 4-5 persons to collectively own a slave. Provided that they fed the slave well; it freed them from a lot of work and would increase their happiness; whereas the slave would get used to his status sooner or later and his unhappiness would be less than the happiness it would provide to his masters.

However utilitarians would argue that the sum wouldn't add up, and that slavery (and large scale murder, like you propose) would always cause more suffering than happiness. One reason cited is that a lot of people wouldn't be able to enjoy themselves if their welfare was based on slavery, genocide and whatnot.

It isn't even necessary to suggest that utilitarianism might make it permissible to own a slave. You can acknowledge that the pleasure the slave owners get is outweighed by something else...the point is that their pleasure actually has no weight at all, and that utilitarianism is wrong to give it any.

It's bizarre that they say people wouldn't enjoy themselves if their welfare was based on slavery though :dizzy2: History much?