Edgar the Exploiter

KyussBishop

If it's not practical for the person to go further to get the milk, and the milk is an essential product, then yes it is involuntary.

In that case, the person has to buy milk, and there is only one effective place to buy it, thus there is no choice but to buy it there.
If milk is not an essential product, the person can just choose not to buy it, so buying it would be voluntary.

Verging on denying the power of monopoly there, because your own definition of 'voluntary exchange', hints at (those is not explicitly stated as) being applicable in all situations a possible exchange can be made, even if there is only the illusion of choice.


Repeating this question because nobody seems to have replied to it:
If we assume getting rid of the minimum wage is better in a full-employment environment (not saying I agree, just framing my question), how do people propose to deal with the employer monopsony situation (potential for underpayment/exploitation) in a high-unemployment environment?

For minimum wage, in my post here I propose a solution which mitigates the potential harm of minimum wage in a high-unemployment environment; if this solution would work, it pretty much makes minimum wage a net-benefit for workers in all situations.

Lockstep

Valmont wrote: »

There is only one shop in my area therefore I buy milk involuntarily.

You don't need milk to survive, you need to work to survive, unless you want to survive solely on social welfare or charity which we'd probably agree is not desirable to aspire to.
Of course, you could claim that you can always go self-employed but that logic can be applied to supermarkets. If you're unable to pay supermarket prices you can go self-sufficient or something.

Valmont wrote: »

Of course I disagree but that is my unequal bargaining power channelling its powers through me without my consent. I'm sorry but such a bastardisation of the very meaning of the word 'voluntary' is farcical. You've essentially bent the meaning of the word to allow you to apply it to any voluntary transaction whereby the individual buying would like to buy it cheaper aka every single transaction conducted every single day. It renders the term almost meaningless.

No, I'd apply to it any situation where there is an element of duress which arises due to unequal bargaining power.

If someone is ordered to sleep with their boss or lose their job, would you say they are making a voluntary choice?
What if someone holds a gun to another's head and orders them to sign a contract, is that voluntary?

Valmont wrote: »

If the dole is the minimum to survive on, what is the purpose of the minimum wage?

To give a value to work mainly. The dole is there to give a minimum to survive on but it's no frills.
The minimum wage goes beyond mere survival but hardly lends itself to a luxurious lifestyle.

Plus it gives a value to work itself, which I'm sure you'd agree is beneficial in encouraging over social welfare.