6 ms·
The problem with the argument is that they distinguish between 'informal because it's the only choice' and 'illegal law evading scumbags slumlords'. So if you f
by timwaagh 7y ago
The problem with the argument is that they distinguish between 'informal because it's the only choice' and 'illegal law evading scumbags slumlords'. So if you follow that line of thinking, if you enjoy only slight success with your informal business, you become the scumbag and should be bulldozered. That's tantamount to reducing township inhabitants to beggars. Given the history of these areas, it's extremely unfortunate.
- iguy 7y agoThat seems like an important distinction to make for observation, I mean if you want to write a paper about what's going on, lumping these things together may be very misleading. It's indeed a bit delicate for governments to make different rules based on size, but many do, there are lots of rules you don't have to follow until you have 50 employees, etc, in many countries. They don't exactly bulldoze you at 51, but they do incentivize staying under this. But the size of the gap just sounds just crazy here, "labour laws ... retail workers must earn at least R3,701 per month" compared to "earning as little as R400 ... per month" -- call it a factor 40 between the legal minimum wage, and the going wage which provides these (useful, even essential) services. That's a big gap to bridge!
- timwaagh 7y agoThat's a good point. It would be perfectly reasonable to enforce some labour rules there. I don't think the article is all bad and some of the things mentioned definitely can't continue.