3 ms·

Perhaps minimum wage proponents need to frame it like that to justify it, but in reality, it goes both ways. You ARE legally forbidding a homeless person from w

Perhaps minimum wage proponents need to frame it like that to justify it, but in reality, it goes both ways. You ARE legally forbidding a homeless person from working at a price of their choosing, just as much as you are forbidding a business from purchasing labor below a certain price.

taeric 9y ago
This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. Do we need to solve homelessness? Absolutely. We do not do this by propping up businesses and properties that rely on below livable wages. I can buy some level of slippery slope at play here. But, by and large, this frames it in a way that allows sub-livable wages. So, you can think my "side" is framing this in a way to justify it. This does little more than convince me your "side" is just trying to justify keeping ill earned wealth.
- lend000 9y ago
  > This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. I think there is a fundamental difference between selling labor and selling legal rights. You might say that someone so financially desperate has de-facto given some rights to their employer, but coercion is always illegal (whether or not this kind of person is likely to seek legal help is another story). > So, you can think my "side" is framing this in a way to justify it. This does little more than convince me your "side" is just trying to justify keeping ill earned wealth. Sounds like you dislike exploitative businesses more than you care about the homeless. That isn't necessarily right or wrong, but I think it explains your inclination on the issue.
  - taeric 9y ago
    I think there is a fundamental difference between selling labor and selling legal rights. You might say that someone so financially desperate has de-facto given some rights to their employer, but coercion is always illegal (whether or not this kind of person is likely to seek legal help is another story). I question that difference. Selling labor is merely selling the legal rights to the product of your labor. Building a dependence into the system by allowing below living wages is something I just don't see ending well. I'm not convinced I'm correct on this. But at face value, I don't see how it works. Sounds like you dislike exploitative businesses more than you care about the homeless. That isn't necessarily right or wrong, but I think it explains your inclination on the issue. I view them as distinct things. And while I certainly encourage ways to get homeless people feeling productive, I don't think getting them below living wage jobs is doing them a favor. Reliable shelter where they are able to get food and necessities while possibly building skills is something I'm incredibly for. And I hate the NIMBY syndrome that is pervading a lot of the city. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy answer. :(
- RivieraKid 9y ago
  What's wrong with allowing people to sell themselves into what you call slavery? Assuming it's a bad decision (makes their lives worse off), the problem is that they make a bad decision. In that case, it might make sense to create a regulation that forbids people making bad decisions. If it's a good decision, there's no point forbidding it.
  - Cozumel 9y ago
    Good for who though? If you're the employer then people selling themselves to you for below living wage (slavery) is absolutely fantastic, if you're the person selling yourself then it's not so great! It's a matter of perspective.

taeric 9y ago

This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. Do we need to solve homelessness? Absolutely. We do not do this by propping up businesses and properties that rely on below livable wages. I can buy some level of slippery slope at play here. But, by and large, this frames it in a way that allows sub-livable wages. So, you can think my "side" is framing this in a way to justify it. This does little more than convince me your "side" is just trying to justify keeping ill earned wealth.

lend000 9y ago
> This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. I think there is a fundamental difference between selling labor and selling legal rights. You might say that someone so financially desperate has de-facto given some rights to their employer, but coercion is always illegal (whether or not this kind of person is likely to seek legal help is another story). > So, you can think my "side" is framing this in a way to justify it. This does little more than convince me your "side" is just trying to justify keeping ill earned wealth. Sounds like you dislike exploitative businesses more than you care about the homeless. That isn't necessarily right or wrong, but I think it explains your inclination on the issue.
- taeric 9y ago
  I think there is a fundamental difference between selling labor and selling legal rights. You might say that someone so financially desperate has de-facto given some rights to their employer, but coercion is always illegal (whether or not this kind of person is likely to seek legal help is another story). I question that difference. Selling labor is merely selling the legal rights to the product of your labor. Building a dependence into the system by allowing below living wages is something I just don't see ending well. I'm not convinced I'm correct on this. But at face value, I don't see how it works. Sounds like you dislike exploitative businesses more than you care about the homeless. That isn't necessarily right or wrong, but I think it explains your inclination on the issue. I view them as distinct things. And while I certainly encourage ways to get homeless people feeling productive, I don't think getting them below living wage jobs is doing them a favor. Reliable shelter where they are able to get food and necessities while possibly building skills is something I'm incredibly for. And I hate the NIMBY syndrome that is pervading a lot of the city. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy answer. :(
RivieraKid 9y ago
What's wrong with allowing people to sell themselves into what you call slavery? Assuming it's a bad decision (makes their lives worse off), the problem is that they make a bad decision. In that case, it might make sense to create a regulation that forbids people making bad decisions. If it's a good decision, there's no point forbidding it.
- Cozumel 9y ago
  Good for who though? If you're the employer then people selling themselves to you for below living wage (slavery) is absolutely fantastic, if you're the person selling yourself then it's not so great! It's a matter of perspective.