4 ms·

A long-term contract isn't necessary; only a continued razor thin margin of financial error that can devolve, more or less immediately, into desperation again.

A long-term contract isn't necessary; only a continued razor thin margin of financial error that can devolve, more or less immediately, into desperation again. /Tens of Millions/ of Americans live their lives there.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
You have to remember that the guy's other option in this example is not working at all, and getting no money. He demonstrably prefers the working situation, by doing it. It's of no risk to him and he can back out at any time. Edit: I also think your expectations of relative difficulty in finding new work and doing it might be the result of minimum wage and other legally imposed on boarding costs. There would, for example, be a much more fluid market of sign spinning jobs with no minimum wage or employment regulations which for some reason want to designate people "employees" with "rights."
- clavalle 9y ago
  Yes, but the 'why' of his preference is important here. Preferring something to avoid pain or death doesn't lead to net positive transactions, in general. If I ask you whether you want your leg or your left hand cut off (and I have the power to make either happen) you can have a preference and still lose.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    > Preferring something to avoid pain or death doesn't lead to net positive transactions, in general. Actually, it does. Because avoiding pain or death, in a preferable way, is by definition a net positive. > If I ask you whether you want your leg or your left hand cut off (and I have the power to make either happen) you can have a preference and still lose. That's not the shape of the example here. The employer isn't the only job in town, and the employer didn't impose a situation of joblessness on the guy. There are other employers he could do menial low-trust work for. The answer of imposing a minimum wage, by the way, means you get your leg and hand cut off.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

You have to remember that the guy's other option in this example is not working at all, and getting no money. He demonstrably prefers the working situation, by doing it. It's of no risk to him and he can back out at any time. Edit: I also think your expectations of relative difficulty in finding new work and doing it might be the result of minimum wage and other legally imposed on boarding costs. There would, for example, be a much more fluid market of sign spinning jobs with no minimum wage or employment regulations which for some reason want to designate people "employees" with "rights."

clavalle 9y ago
Yes, but the 'why' of his preference is important here. Preferring something to avoid pain or death doesn't lead to net positive transactions, in general. If I ask you whether you want your leg or your left hand cut off (and I have the power to make either happen) you can have a preference and still lose.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  > Preferring something to avoid pain or death doesn't lead to net positive transactions, in general. Actually, it does. Because avoiding pain or death, in a preferable way, is by definition a net positive. > If I ask you whether you want your leg or your left hand cut off (and I have the power to make either happen) you can have a preference and still lose. That's not the shape of the example here. The employer isn't the only job in town, and the employer didn't impose a situation of joblessness on the guy. There are other employers he could do menial low-trust work for. The answer of imposing a minimum wage, by the way, means you get your leg and hand cut off.