Warstler is correct to note an inconsistency here. What he fails to recognize is that this inconsistency emerges from his own position, which those two points merely set out to address.
* * *
On one hand, Warstler sells UFW as a payroll cut for employers:
If payroll costs are inevitably passed along to consumers, UFW's cheap labor offers no particular incentive to employers. Here Warstler insists that it does, so it follows directly that employers pay for labor. Right? On one hand, employers pay for labor -- but on the other hand,
Here, in order to defend himself from point (1), Warstler has to completely reverse his position. Now payroll costs always get passed along to the consumer, which is why UFW businesses have no incentive to abuse the program.
So when he wants to sell UFW to businesses, he promises payroll cuts -- but when he wants to sell it to the public, he pretends there's no potential for abuse since the payroll cuts aren't really payroll cuts. Which is it?
* * *
This sort of obvious dissembling two-step runs through Warstler's entire post. Skipping to the end, for example, where he argues against (11)'s observation that UFW would ratchet in enormous, growing precarity:
This is not actually an argument that high turnover is an advantage -- it's an argument that the evils of high turnover are avoided because employees "find their place". But insofar as UFW maintains a high rate of turnover (which Warstler concedes it would), employees have clearly not found their place. So again: which is it?
No need to further belabor the point. These instances are representative of both the entire post defending UFW and UFW itself, neither of which make any attempt to maintain any kind of internal consistency. Warstler will presumably continue to avoid any rigorous defense of his project, for reasons too obvious to spell out.