What is a fair price? Is defined by the production cost, what people are simply willing to pay for it, or something else? This should be applied to wages as well. I think a price is only definable as fair if it is something agreed on by all involved parties, and should require no other criteria (I don't believe ANYTHING has any intrinsic value). But regarding wages (the price of labor), some people think that for any regular job, a wage must provide a person with enough to live on in order to be "fair." What are your thoughts?

What is a fair price? Is defined by the production cost, what people are simply willing to pay for it, or something else?

All of the above and more!

I think a price is only definable as fair if it is something agreed on by all involved parties, and should require no other criteria

Ahh, but it ain't so simple as that. For example, even if a party is NOT involved, and even though the involved parties agree to the price, that uninvolved party can say that it was NOT a fair price.

See? The problem is the actual definition of "fair"? That doesn't necessarily mean that it's ONLY between the buy and seller ...fair might well mean "fair" to a outside observer. Buyer and seller might say it's fair, but others might not agree. So.....is it fair?

But regarding wages (the price of labor), some people think that for any regular job, a wage must provide a person with enough to live on in order to be "fair." What are your thoughts?

Well, that ain't much a definition, is it? I mean, if the workers can't live, then the employer is gonna' fail anyway ...so no one wins!

But again, "fair" is something that's nebulous, at best! What the workers and the employer agree is "fair", there might be millions who disagree. So ...is it "fair"? Who makes that determination?

The problem, as I see it, is that I think you're trying to define a term in philosopical terms, rather than in pragmatic terms. Philosophical ideals are only meant for agruing, discussing, with virtually no agreed resolution! Real life, however, can't stop while everyone sits around discussing such bullshit.

You've noticed, I'm sure, that I took the philosophical approach to the discussion ....so that we can argue about from now 'til hell freezes over! :)

Baron Max

What is a fair price?
free or a 5 finger discount. :o

What is a fair price? Is defined by the production cost, what people are simply willing to pay for it, or something else? This should be applied to wages as well. I think a price is only definable as fair if it is something agreed on by all involved parties, and should require no other criteria (I don't believe ANYTHING has any intrinsic value). But regarding wages (the price of labor), some people think that for any regular job, a wage must provide a person with enough to live on in order to be "fair." What are your thoughts?

fair price is my thumb for yours, my eye for yours, my land for yours, and lets each kill each other to make it fair to the ultimate!

What is a fair price?
What is mutually agreeable.

Easy.. Given P_1(Q) for the supply side where P_1 is the price for a quantity Q. And given P_2(Q) for the demand curve... fair price is when P_1(Q) = P_2(Q). This is when quantity supplied is equal to the demand wanted.

Baron Max: "Buyer and seller might say it's fair, but others might not agree. So.....is it fair?" Are you saying that others who are indirectly affected might not agree? I mean, if someone sells property to a factory owner who builds a factory on the land, which pollutes the river, thus polluting a completely unconsulted person's land, then I would say it is unfair because that person is an involved party. But if he's just on the sidelines with no personal interest in the situation, then screw his opinion. =P

"Well, that ain't much a definition, is it? I mean, if the workers can't live, then the employer is gonna' fail anyway ...so no one wins!" In some situations, like back in early industrial America, if an unskilled employee dies, some immigrant can just take his place, so the unlivability of a wage sometimes won't negatively affect the employer (although obviously it usually does). Some people say that this is unfair to the employee, because the employer makes an implicit agreement to exchange an equal amount of money for services (like Absane said), which is almost always above living cost, but the employee is so desperate he might be willing to contractually settle for less than he is earning for the employer. Personally, I think that's just too bad (and is a genuinely tragic situation in a lot of ways), but the employer doesn't owe them any more than what is agreed to.

"The problem, as I see it, is that I think you're trying to define a term in philosopical terms, rather than in pragmatic terms." I actually agree. I started this thread because my friend and I had a VERY long debate about minimum wage, and the issue of "fair" wages kept coming up, while I maintain that there is no such thing as a set intrinsic value for labor that it is "fair" to compensate someone for, and she argued that it is unfair to take the product of someone's labor for less than it costs to sustain them (even if they agree to those terms.) I couldn't convince her that fair was an arbitrary term, though. :'( I was hoping you guys could help me understand some different perspectives on the issue, though.

Absane: So should profit never occur on either side? What I mean is, if an employee earns 10 dollars an hour for his employer by working, should the employer give him 10 dollars for every hour worked? Because then, there is no incentive for the employer. It seems that there has to be some profit margin for entrepeneurs to go into business in order to support the economy. What is fair for that profit margin to be, however, is impossible to determine for me.

Absane: So should profit never occur on either side? What I mean is, if an employee earns 10 dollars an hour for his employer by working, should the employer give him 10 dollars for every hour worked? Because then, there is no incentive for the employer. It seems that there has to be some profit margin for entrepeneurs to go into business in order to support the economy. What is fair for that profit margin to be, however, is impossible to determine for me.

I never said a profit shouldn't occur. What I meant is the supplier is willing to offer a product or service for a certain price for an amount of quantity and the same for the custumer.

The price includes the costs involved, the desire to sell or buy, and the desire to come out with some sort of gain.

Baron Max: "Buyer and seller might say it's fair, but others might not agree. So.....is it fair?"

Are you saying that others who are indirectly affected might not agree? I mean, if someone sells property to a factory owner who builds a factory on the land, which pollutes the river, thus polluting a completely unconsulted person's land, then I would say it is unfair because that person is an involved party.

But the seller might not know that for a hundred years! So do we have to be able to see into the future in order to decide what's fair or not?? C'mon?!

But even that outlandish example shows that what's fair for the buyer and seller might not be fair to an observer; and that the "fairness" might not remain the same over time. And if that's the case, then how does one decide "fair"? How many people must agree that it's fair in order for it to be deemed "fair"? And how long must one wait in order to determine "fair"? 1,000 years? 10 years?

Baron Max

What is a fair price?
When the price is equal to the actual value of the product.

What is a fair price?
When the price is equal to the actual value of the product.

And the value of the product is determined by the customer.

Certainly. Isn't that what marketing is all about? ;)

What is a fair price?
When the price is equal to the actual value of the product.

Nothing ever can be fear as someone who benefits from something, someone, something else will not loose from this beneficial relationship. So nothing is fair because nothing can be fear.

Baron Max: I think you misunderstood me. The observer is only an involved party because the sale directly affects the observer's property. That's why he should have a say to some extent. It isn't a matter of time, but of influence. If the neighbor whose property would be ruined was moving in a month anyway, and wasn't going to have his land polluted during his ownership of it, then his opinion doesn't matter.

I tend to agree with what Absane (and others) are saying. But my question is: is it unfair to provide a worker with a wage that doesn't afford them enough to survive on if the worker is producing a good amount for the company? Arguments to why it's unfair is that for the moment the worker probably has no real alternative, and the employer is forcing him into a dependent situation, and it's therefore the employer's responsibility to take care of the worker. Of course, the other argument is, if both parties agree to a set wage, no one has anything to complain about as far as fairness.

I would make the second argument, but I was trying to get a feel for where other people stand on the issue.