37 ms·

My favorite hack is trying to avoid the 2019 equivalent to sweatshop labour.

gridlockd 7y ago
You seem to disregard that in many countries the alternative to "sweatshop labor" is becoming a beggar. A dollar an hour can be a good income in some parts of this world, believe it or not. If you can't compete on price like that, don't bid.
- seamyb88 7y ago
  > You seem to disregard that in many countries the alternative to "sweatshop labor" is becoming a beggar. Know who hasn't disregarded this? The wealthy people exploiting it, who pointed it out to you in the hope that this level of depth on the matter was all you needed. Nobody on HN is a participant in a race to the bottom. Don't advocate it as a career strategy.
  - scroot 7y ago
    It's the neoliberal Panglossian response -- the best of all possible worlds!
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      You have named your nemesis, but can you show that he's wrong?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Know who hasn't disregarded this? The wealthy people exploiting it, who pointed it out to you in the hope that this level of depth on the matter was all you needed. So? What's the alternative, then? You can complain all day about how people are exploited and that exploitation is bad. I don't disagree on that part. The question is, are you making the situation better by preventing exploitation "per decree"? Let's say you raised the minimum amount of compensation for clickworking, what would happen? All the work that remains economical is compensated better, but all the work that isn't economical at that rate just disappears. What also happens is that no worker gets the opportunity to compete on price. Let's say people from country A are poorer on average and therefore can offer better rates, but the quality is lower on average than in country B. People from country A can still get work by offering lower rates. If rates were forced up, there's no reason to purchase from country B anymore, because price is the same but quality is worse. You have given country B an unfair advantage and you have worsened the economic prospects in country B, even though it is already poorer. This is trade protectionism. If you think it is "good", you can just go shake hands with Donald Trump and praise the China tariffs. > Nobody on HN is a participant in a race to the bottom. A lot of people on HN are on the "Those poor people! We need to regulate this!" bandwagon. Their intention might be right, their comprehension might not. > Don't advocate it as a career strategy. I'm not, that would be ridiculous. Clickworking is not a career. Most people don't have a career. Clickworking might not be a great opportunity for most people, that doesn't mean it should be taken away.
- mighty_bander 7y ago
  You're right, taking advantage of desperate people is OK if you give them a slightly better quality of life than homelessness offers.
  - moresocialism 7y ago
    When it really comes down to it, it's corrupt governments that create an environment where people are poor and desperate. Mostly because businesses aren't really interested in the risks involved. Nobody cares about fixing this though. They just think throwing money at poor nations will somehow bring people above the poverty line. Many countries in Africa are a good example of this not working. We also perpetuate the issue through massive donations because local industries can't compete with free and the citizens become endlessly dependent.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    I'm not saying it's "OK" in the moral sense. It's of course morally better to pay people fairly than to exploit their situation, but it's also morally better to exploit their situation than not doing anything for them, or even make their lives worse by removing the opportunity to "get exploited" - for the purpose of moral posturing.
    - mighty_bander 7y ago
      These companies that we all work at get millions in funding, and are happy to pay programmers 150k+ a year because they need them to succeed. The difference between a dollar and hour and five is negligible to these organisations at the levels most of them are using this sort of labour. This is rarely a choice between paying subsistence wages and none at all - instead it's a choice between subsistence wages and making a decent living. There's also the fact that people who are affected, who slip out the bottom of whatever calculation is going on, are going to have more opportunities locally if their peers are still employed doing more profitable work. I see a lot of people fall for the argument that starvation wages are an alternative to no wages, and it's not true now any more than it was when the industrialists tried it in the 19th century. Standard of living, wherever it may be, is better off when money is in the hands of ordinary working people.
psychrometer 7y ago
Got to love rich westerners who want to remove options that improve that lives of people in the third world.
- depr 7y ago
  Yeah, we're improving lives guys, not maintaining and furthering an unjust system.

You seem to disregard that in many countries the alternative to "sweatshop labor" is becoming a beggar. A dollar an hour can be a good income in some parts of this world, believe it or not. If you can't compete on price like that, don't bid.

seamyb88 7y ago
> You seem to disregard that in many countries the alternative to "sweatshop labor" is becoming a beggar. Know who hasn't disregarded this? The wealthy people exploiting it, who pointed it out to you in the hope that this level of depth on the matter was all you needed. Nobody on HN is a participant in a race to the bottom. Don't advocate it as a career strategy.
- scroot 7y ago
  It's the neoliberal Panglossian response -- the best of all possible worlds!
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    You have named your nemesis, but can you show that he's wrong?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Know who hasn't disregarded this? The wealthy people exploiting it, who pointed it out to you in the hope that this level of depth on the matter was all you needed. So? What's the alternative, then? You can complain all day about how people are exploited and that exploitation is bad. I don't disagree on that part. The question is, are you making the situation better by preventing exploitation "per decree"? Let's say you raised the minimum amount of compensation for clickworking, what would happen? All the work that remains economical is compensated better, but all the work that isn't economical at that rate just disappears. What also happens is that no worker gets the opportunity to compete on price. Let's say people from country A are poorer on average and therefore can offer better rates, but the quality is lower on average than in country B. People from country A can still get work by offering lower rates. If rates were forced up, there's no reason to purchase from country B anymore, because price is the same but quality is worse. You have given country B an unfair advantage and you have worsened the economic prospects in country B, even though it is already poorer. This is trade protectionism. If you think it is "good", you can just go shake hands with Donald Trump and praise the China tariffs. > Nobody on HN is a participant in a race to the bottom. A lot of people on HN are on the "Those poor people! We need to regulate this!" bandwagon. Their intention might be right, their comprehension might not. > Don't advocate it as a career strategy. I'm not, that would be ridiculous. Clickworking is not a career. Most people don't have a career. Clickworking might not be a great opportunity for most people, that doesn't mean it should be taken away.
mighty_bander 7y ago
You're right, taking advantage of desperate people is OK if you give them a slightly better quality of life than homelessness offers.
- moresocialism 7y ago
  When it really comes down to it, it's corrupt governments that create an environment where people are poor and desperate. Mostly because businesses aren't really interested in the risks involved. Nobody cares about fixing this though. They just think throwing money at poor nations will somehow bring people above the poverty line. Many countries in Africa are a good example of this not working. We also perpetuate the issue through massive donations because local industries can't compete with free and the citizens become endlessly dependent.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  I'm not saying it's "OK" in the moral sense. It's of course morally better to pay people fairly than to exploit their situation, but it's also morally better to exploit their situation than not doing anything for them, or even make their lives worse by removing the opportunity to "get exploited" - for the purpose of moral posturing.
  - mighty_bander 7y ago
    These companies that we all work at get millions in funding, and are happy to pay programmers 150k+ a year because they need them to succeed. The difference between a dollar and hour and five is negligible to these organisations at the levels most of them are using this sort of labour. This is rarely a choice between paying subsistence wages and none at all - instead it's a choice between subsistence wages and making a decent living. There's also the fact that people who are affected, who slip out the bottom of whatever calculation is going on, are going to have more opportunities locally if their peers are still employed doing more profitable work. I see a lot of people fall for the argument that starvation wages are an alternative to no wages, and it's not true now any more than it was when the industrialists tried it in the 19th century. Standard of living, wherever it may be, is better off when money is in the hands of ordinary working people.

psychrometer 7y ago

Got to love rich westerners who want to remove options that improve that lives of people in the third world.

depr 7y ago
Yeah, we're improving lives guys, not maintaining and furthering an unjust system.