Nothing funny about it, it’s called leverage, and realistically it’s not always a bad thing. The note up above about it not being slavery because it’s voluntary is really important. If someone is entering into an agreement willingly, that’s pretty good evidence at least (if not proof) that they expect or perceive it to be a mutually beneficial transaction. This can be the case regardless of some 3rd party’s (and especially a rich westerner’s) gut reaction that the wage is crazy low.
> If someone is entering into an agreement willingly, that’s pretty good evidence at least (if not proof) that they expect or perceive it to be a mutually beneficial transaction.
Respectfully, the existance, and the need, for minimum wage puts lie to this assumption. People need money to survive, and will take whatever job they can when they don't have one, even if it not for enough pay.
I'm not claiming this is the case here, but that this argument is badly flawed.
Not really? In a world with no minimum wage, working for sub-living wage is better than zero. That’s still beneficial compared to the alternative. So the analogous thing here, which I think is true, is that if you think it’s crazy people are accepting a job for $2, you ought to start looking for solutions amongst the jobs paying $1.99 and below.
That’s what minimum wage does. It eliminates the alternatives below the line, not above it.
> That’s what minimum wage does. It eliminates the alternatives below the line, not above it.
You should go back and look at why minimum wage was established in the first place - so people could work and still have lives outside of work.
And frankly, the "option" of starving out on the street is not a real alternative we should even be including in our discussions in 2023. It smacks of treating poor folks as some subhuman species who has to earn their right to live from us.
Err, right. “The line” I’m referring to is below the wage itself, not below the poverty line or below the level required to live (the minimum wage being well below both of those in much of the country today).
No one is discussing that alternative. Not sure who you think is? We’re discussing whether a $2 wage in a country with an average wage of $1.50 is abusive.
My position is simply that 1) a wage in one country appearing low to the standards of a completely different country is not evidence of abusive employment; 2) people accepting those wages when they’re not coerced is evidence that the wages are not abuse, though it could also be evidence of other problems that preclude a better alternative.
It's telling that you had to remove the conditional from that excerpt you've taken. Rhetorically owned me and made zero progress on the actual conversation and problem we're trying to unpack together. You have a good day as well!
