5 ms·

I think you're forgetting why unions and minimum wage and child labor laws came into being. It's because people were locked into their seats at the mill, worki

by lsb 17y ago

I think you're forgetting why unions and minimum wage and child labor laws came into being. It's because people were locked into their seats at the mill, working 10-12 hours a day, and fired when they got sick. Now, you have people working in the comfort of their climate-controlled home. A homemaker used to get bored to tears taking care of kids, feeling utterly dependent on a spouse for income. Now both parties can feel productive, and each gets the work best suited.

adamhowell 17y ago
Minimum wage had nothing to do with bad working conditions. Bad working conditions brought about standards in work safety and unionization -- not minimum wage. Now, you're right about child labor and minimum wage being connected. Minimum wage was first enacted in Australia and New Zealand for the sole reason of preventing businesses and the market from unfairly exploiting workers -- expressly women and children -- by paying them non-living wages. As far as I can tell we have the same exact thing happening here. Just because a woman is working from "the comfort of [her] climate-controlled home" doesn't make $2.50/hour fair. (Also, I should state that I'm only concerned here w/ US employees being paid $2.50/hour. I think offshoring/outsourcing is another topic entirely.)
- gojomo 17y ago
  If the alternative is soap operas or Farmville and $0/hour, why isn't $2.50/hour "fair"? Not every casual, part-time, voluntary, done-at-your-own-pace-on-your-own-terms activity should have to pay a "living" wage. That sort of standard doesn't "protect" people -- it destroys potential. "Exploitation" is not a matter of first-world absolute watermarks (like a statutory minimum wage) of the value of people's time. It's a matter of what their other options are. If they have to work for $2.50/hour or starve, that could be a problem. If they choose to work for $2.50/hour rather than watch TV, then something other than exploitation is happening. (And besides the immediate but less-than-minimum-wage benefits, the person could also be building knowledge and skills towards an eventual higher-paid job.) And if you only prohibit American workers from taking such casual voluntary work, why is it better for the $2.50 to go overseas?
  - adamhowell 17y ago
    Your classification of what people would do if it weren't for the grace of Cha-Cha paying them is offensive -- "soap operas", "Farmville", "watch TV". It's easier for you to make your argument if you color these people as "do nothings" who are lucky to get whatever work is offered to them. If businesses should be able to pay certain people living wages and others whatever they work for, should McD's pay high school kids $2.50 and single moms more? Also, the work I do is at my own pace, does that mean my company should pay me less since I'm not being forced to produce? The simple fact that it's work done from home doesn't mean the rules that regular businesses must follow need not apply. Also, $2.50/hr overseas isn't $2.50/hr, it's whatever the conversion rate is. That's why that conversation is much more complicated. And I'm not a protectionist, so I have no problem with the notion of offshoring.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      You're straining to take offense, and so imagining slights against these people that weren't present or intended. Really, many of the people doing online piecework, like Cha-Cha answers or MTurk tasks, aren't even looking for a real clock-in job. They're just engaged in a diversion, and happy to be making a little on the side. If they weren't doing the piecework, they would be Facebooking, IM'ing, TV-watching, gaming -- something else they can do in dribs and drabs at home. In fact, they may be doing all those things simultaneously! If your preferred crackdown was enacted -- abolishing their current arrangement -- many wouldn't even look for one of your "fair" regulated minimum-wage jobs, clocking in at some office or fast-food-joint. I respect them to make their own decisions. You "color these people" as if they were helpless victims "who let themselves be taken advantage of" and "aren't using the same judgement and resources to make their decisions as those who know better". That's more denigratory to voluntary at-home pieceworkers than anything I've said.
- lsb 17y ago
  1. Homemaker != woman. Highly correlated, but don't assume. 2. Contractors can either work per hour or per job. And if both people agree on a job and a price, and each job is slightly different, and you don't know a priori how long it's going to take, how do you reprice the jobs?
  - adamhowell 17y ago
    Oh, definitely, I only used "woman" to tie together my previous sentence a/b the beginnings of minimum wage. In a perfect world Chacha should have to readjust their per search payment until their average hourly wage was minimum wage. Several hundreds or thousands of people doing contract work online from home shouldn't escape the kinds of regulations other businesses have to meet.

by lsb 17y ago

adamhowell 17y ago

Minimum wage had nothing to do with bad working conditions. Bad working conditions brought about standards in work safety and unionization -- not minimum wage. Now, you're right about child labor and minimum wage being connected. Minimum wage was first enacted in Australia and New Zealand for the sole reason of preventing businesses and the market from unfairly exploiting workers -- expressly women and children -- by paying them non-living wages. As far as I can tell we have the same exact thing happening here. Just because a woman is working from "the comfort of [her] climate-controlled home" doesn't make $2.50/hour fair. (Also, I should state that I'm only concerned here w/ US employees being paid $2.50/hour. I think offshoring/outsourcing is another topic entirely.)

gojomo 17y ago
If the alternative is soap operas or Farmville and $0/hour, why isn't $2.50/hour "fair"? Not every casual, part-time, voluntary, done-at-your-own-pace-on-your-own-terms activity should have to pay a "living" wage. That sort of standard doesn't "protect" people -- it destroys potential. "Exploitation" is not a matter of first-world absolute watermarks (like a statutory minimum wage) of the value of people's time. It's a matter of what their other options are. If they have to work for $2.50/hour or starve, that could be a problem. If they choose to work for $2.50/hour rather than watch TV, then something other than exploitation is happening. (And besides the immediate but less-than-minimum-wage benefits, the person could also be building knowledge and skills towards an eventual higher-paid job.) And if you only prohibit American workers from taking such casual voluntary work, why is it better for the $2.50 to go overseas?
- adamhowell 17y ago
  Your classification of what people would do if it weren't for the grace of Cha-Cha paying them is offensive -- "soap operas", "Farmville", "watch TV". It's easier for you to make your argument if you color these people as "do nothings" who are lucky to get whatever work is offered to them. If businesses should be able to pay certain people living wages and others whatever they work for, should McD's pay high school kids $2.50 and single moms more? Also, the work I do is at my own pace, does that mean my company should pay me less since I'm not being forced to produce? The simple fact that it's work done from home doesn't mean the rules that regular businesses must follow need not apply. Also, $2.50/hr overseas isn't $2.50/hr, it's whatever the conversion rate is. That's why that conversation is much more complicated. And I'm not a protectionist, so I have no problem with the notion of offshoring.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    You're straining to take offense, and so imagining slights against these people that weren't present or intended. Really, many of the people doing online piecework, like Cha-Cha answers or MTurk tasks, aren't even looking for a real clock-in job. They're just engaged in a diversion, and happy to be making a little on the side. If they weren't doing the piecework, they would be Facebooking, IM'ing, TV-watching, gaming -- something else they can do in dribs and drabs at home. In fact, they may be doing all those things simultaneously! If your preferred crackdown was enacted -- abolishing their current arrangement -- many wouldn't even look for one of your "fair" regulated minimum-wage jobs, clocking in at some office or fast-food-joint. I respect them to make their own decisions. You "color these people" as if they were helpless victims "who let themselves be taken advantage of" and "aren't using the same judgement and resources to make their decisions as those who know better". That's more denigratory to voluntary at-home pieceworkers than anything I've said.
lsb 17y ago
1. Homemaker != woman. Highly correlated, but don't assume. 2. Contractors can either work per hour or per job. And if both people agree on a job and a price, and each job is slightly different, and you don't know a priori how long it's going to take, how do you reprice the jobs?
- adamhowell 17y ago
  Oh, definitely, I only used "woman" to tie together my previous sentence a/b the beginnings of minimum wage. In a perfect world Chacha should have to readjust their per search payment until their average hourly wage was minimum wage. Several hundreds or thousands of people doing contract work online from home shouldn't escape the kinds of regulations other businesses have to meet.