4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.