4 ms·

> forced Who is suggesting forcing people to do anything? You are so confident in what is the best interests of the poor. You are actually suggesting it is bet

> forced Who is suggesting forcing people to do anything? You are so confident in what is the best interests of the poor. You are actually suggesting it is better for people to live in squalor feeding their children breadcrumbs than to work below minimum wage. How about letting people decide for themselves what jobs they want to work and at what wages instead of coming in here mandating what "should" be done without any evidence that it will actually benefit the people you claim to care about? You are the only person in this discussion interested in forcing and mandating people to do anything.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Your post commits a common oversight, the fact that coercion beyond agreements perfectly a rational Homo Economicus would make is a reality. Picking a different job isnt an option when ALL of the jobs require that, the situation in SK really is that extreme, and thats why this law was brought in.
yongjik 8y ago
In your libertarian model society, poor people can choose for themselves... between working 10 hours a day to earn less than minimum wage, with no time left for learning new skills or searching for a better job, or not working and starving. If you want give people the power to choose for themselves, they should be able to take a break. They should be able to take risks, without equating losing (or quitting) a job with financial doom. Otherwise the "choice" poor people have is only on paper, in the same way the old joke plays: in America people have the freedom to criticize the American government, and in Soviet Union people had the exact same freedom - to criticize the American government. What you derisively call "breadcrumbs" is the foundation of modern welfare society, a recognition of its duty to each individual in the society. (I'm not saying South Korea is a model society: clearly it isn't, when it has to tell business owners to stop overworking people. But we're moving in the right direction.)
- swfsql 8y ago
  Without min wage laws, the most disadvantaged person (low skill etc) has more OPTIONS to choose from. Wanna "take a break"? Sure, she can try choosing that. Wanna work below min wage? Sure, its their choice. You are saying its "better for them" if we take options out of them. Now, how is that even possible..? ps. I won't point you at anything, but try looking for historical reasons behind min wage imposition. They simply wanted to exterminate those "disadvantaged persons" (because most of them were blacks, and those who imposed this law were racists).

throwaway2048 8y ago

Your post commits a common oversight, the fact that coercion beyond agreements perfectly a rational Homo Economicus would make is a reality. Picking a different job isnt an option when ALL of the jobs require that, the situation in SK really is that extreme, and thats why this law was brought in.

yongjik 8y ago

In your libertarian model society, poor people can choose for themselves... between working 10 hours a day to earn less than minimum wage, with no time left for learning new skills or searching for a better job, or not working and starving. If you want give people the power to choose for themselves, they should be able to take a break. They should be able to take risks, without equating losing (or quitting) a job with financial doom. Otherwise the "choice" poor people have is only on paper, in the same way the old joke plays: in America people have the freedom to criticize the American government, and in Soviet Union people had the exact same freedom - to criticize the American government. What you derisively call "breadcrumbs" is the foundation of modern welfare society, a recognition of its duty to each individual in the society. (I'm not saying South Korea is a model society: clearly it isn't, when it has to tell business owners to stop overworking people. But we're moving in the right direction.)

swfsql 8y ago
Without min wage laws, the most disadvantaged person (low skill etc) has more OPTIONS to choose from. Wanna "take a break"? Sure, she can try choosing that. Wanna work below min wage? Sure, its their choice. You are saying its "better for them" if we take options out of them. Now, how is that even possible..? ps. I won't point you at anything, but try looking for historical reasons behind min wage imposition. They simply wanted to exterminate those "disadvantaged persons" (because most of them were blacks, and those who imposed this law were racists).