13 ms·

Is this indicative of demand for jobs below the minimum wage?

by drpgq 6y ago

klyrs 6y ago
There's demand for murder-for-hire, too. So what?
- rcoveson 6y ago
  So, with murder-for-hire, the contract stipulates that somebody gets murdered. In paying somebody $6/hour to deliver packages, the contract requires that people's package get delivered. I think we can agree that the negative side-effects of the sub-minimum-wage-package-delivery arrangement are subtler.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    I met a guy just the other day selling cigarettes by a bus stop for half price, no tax. There's clearly demand for cigarettes at those prices, right? Does it matter that they were stolen from a small business a few blocks away? The common theme here is that the enterprise is against the law, and "there's demand for that" is no excuse to break the law. The reason for the law is more "subtle" but theft is theft. Of course, the dude selling cigarettes will probably be lucky to make $100 a day, but he's risking jail time. The folks stealing wages from delivery drivers are stealing way more than that, but they'll pay some fines and settle some lawsuits which almost certainly won't overwhelm their profits. Or -- let's say it's more subtle. So what?
    - rcoveson 6y ago
      I think that bringing up the fact that "there is demand" is not necessarily an argument that it's okay to break the law. I think it's the start of a proposal that the law should be changed. Whether or not we agree, that's the thing to address. Not "is breaking the law, in general, okay", which is silly. I also think it's wrong to equate the proposal that minimum wage law should be changed because there is demand for jobs at a certain wage with the proposal that murder-for-hire should be allowed because there is demand for it. Minimum wage laws are barely 100 years old in the US, while laws against murder are as old as law itself. I'd venture to say that you could describe punishments for murder to any civilization in history and they would at least understand why you would propose such a thing. Minimum wage law, not so much. If some newcomer to my 18th century town is willing to work on my farm for a season for nothing but room and board, and you tell me that that relationship is exploitative and should be illegal, I'd call you insane. I think a better comparison we could make is the sale of heroin. That's another instance where two consenting adults enter into an agreement that is currently, but not historically, illegal. It's also an instance where many argue that the relationship is exploitative, despite being voluntary. The similarities with minimum wage law are, from my perspective, deeper and more resonant.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        I'm sorry, but I can't take your "18th century town" seriously, and neither would any judge. Familiarize yourself with modern case law. It's really not that difficult. And (tongue in cheek, kinda) some might say that the age of laws against murder indicate that the industry is ripe for disruption...
        rcoveson 6y ago
        Yeah, it seems like we're just talking past each other. I am aware that paying people less than minimum wage is illegal, as I am sure was the original poster to whom you replied. However, pointing out that something is illegal is not the end of a discussion about that thing. If it were, laws would never change. The point of my 18th century town illustration was not to "convince a judge", it was to demonstrate how certain laws are less deeply ingrained in human society than murder laws. Less deeply ingrained laws get argued about, deeply ingrained laws generally do not. But nobody is arguing about whether they are laws, they are arguing about whether they should be laws. Even after a law is passed, and upheld in court, it still needs to defend itself in the court of public opinion when it is questioned. If you are content with and confident in the status quo, then you don't have to participate in those discussions. But if it is important to you that minimum wage laws go away, you have every right to argue against it ("there is demand for lower-wage jobs", for example). And if it is important to you that minimum wage law continue to stand, and you believe they are under threat, then it may make sense to defend it by pointing out its merits (e.g. "competing, desperate people do not act rationally or in their collective best interests"). If somebody proposes: "There is demand for marijuana", think about how useless the comment "there is demand for murder" is. Yes, they are both illegal things. No, that does not mean it's useless to discuss whether they should remain illegal. Now, if you continue with "familiarize yourself with the case law, marijuana users go to prison because it's illegal", do you see how it continues to be useless to the discussion about the legality of marijuana use? The discussion is not about whether [marijuana use/sub-minimum-wage employment] is actually illegal.
- drpgq 6y ago
  I'm curious if people choose to do this because they can't get another minimum wage job or if they think they are making more than minimum wage but in fact aren't. Or that they could get a minimum wage job with set hours but they want the gig flexibility.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Reading no further than the title, Amazon wouldn't "keep getting sued" if the employees thought they were getting a fair bargain. The article goes into the details of their grievances.
salawat 6y ago
I'll pay you 25 cents to solve all my problems. Just because demand is there doesn't mean it is either A) practical B ) economical C) moral D) All of the above Learning to differentiate between the lunacy of market signal theory from which reality is abstracted out of and the next big thing is a bit of a learned skill.
- drpgq 6y ago
  I'm curious if people choose to do this because they can't get another minimum wage job or if they think they are making more than minimum wage but in fact aren't. Or that they could get a minimum wage job with set hours but they want the gig flexibility.

Is this indicative of demand for jobs below the minimum wage?

by drpgq 6y ago

Is this indicative of demand for jobs below the minimum wage?

klyrs 6y ago

There's demand for murder-for-hire, too. So what?

rcoveson 6y ago
So, with murder-for-hire, the contract stipulates that somebody gets murdered. In paying somebody $6/hour to deliver packages, the contract requires that people's package get delivered. I think we can agree that the negative side-effects of the sub-minimum-wage-package-delivery arrangement are subtler.
- klyrs 6y ago
  I met a guy just the other day selling cigarettes by a bus stop for half price, no tax. There's clearly demand for cigarettes at those prices, right? Does it matter that they were stolen from a small business a few blocks away? The common theme here is that the enterprise is against the law, and "there's demand for that" is no excuse to break the law. The reason for the law is more "subtle" but theft is theft. Of course, the dude selling cigarettes will probably be lucky to make $100 a day, but he's risking jail time. The folks stealing wages from delivery drivers are stealing way more than that, but they'll pay some fines and settle some lawsuits which almost certainly won't overwhelm their profits. Or -- let's say it's more subtle. So what?
  - rcoveson 6y ago
    I think that bringing up the fact that "there is demand" is not necessarily an argument that it's okay to break the law. I think it's the start of a proposal that the law should be changed. Whether or not we agree, that's the thing to address. Not "is breaking the law, in general, okay", which is silly. I also think it's wrong to equate the proposal that minimum wage law should be changed because there is demand for jobs at a certain wage with the proposal that murder-for-hire should be allowed because there is demand for it. Minimum wage laws are barely 100 years old in the US, while laws against murder are as old as law itself. I'd venture to say that you could describe punishments for murder to any civilization in history and they would at least understand why you would propose such a thing. Minimum wage law, not so much. If some newcomer to my 18th century town is willing to work on my farm for a season for nothing but room and board, and you tell me that that relationship is exploitative and should be illegal, I'd call you insane. I think a better comparison we could make is the sale of heroin. That's another instance where two consenting adults enter into an agreement that is currently, but not historically, illegal. It's also an instance where many argue that the relationship is exploitative, despite being voluntary. The similarities with minimum wage law are, from my perspective, deeper and more resonant.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but I can't take your "18th century town" seriously, and neither would any judge. Familiarize yourself with modern case law. It's really not that difficult. And (tongue in cheek, kinda) some might say that the age of laws against murder indicate that the industry is ripe for disruption...
      - rcoveson 6y ago
        Yeah, it seems like we're just talking past each other. I am aware that paying people less than minimum wage is illegal, as I am sure was the original poster to whom you replied. However, pointing out that something is illegal is not the end of a discussion about that thing. If it were, laws would never change. The point of my 18th century town illustration was not to "convince a judge", it was to demonstrate how certain laws are less deeply ingrained in human society than murder laws. Less deeply ingrained laws get argued about, deeply ingrained laws generally do not. But nobody is arguing about whether they are laws, they are arguing about whether they should be laws. Even after a law is passed, and upheld in court, it still needs to defend itself in the court of public opinion when it is questioned. If you are content with and confident in the status quo, then you don't have to participate in those discussions. But if it is important to you that minimum wage laws go away, you have every right to argue against it ("there is demand for lower-wage jobs", for example). And if it is important to you that minimum wage law continue to stand, and you believe they are under threat, then it may make sense to defend it by pointing out its merits (e.g. "competing, desperate people do not act rationally or in their collective best interests"). If somebody proposes: "There is demand for marijuana", think about how useless the comment "there is demand for murder" is. Yes, they are both illegal things. No, that does not mean it's useless to discuss whether they should remain illegal. Now, if you continue with "familiarize yourself with the case law, marijuana users go to prison because it's illegal", do you see how it continues to be useless to the discussion about the legality of marijuana use? The discussion is not about whether [marijuana use/sub-minimum-wage employment] is actually illegal.
drpgq 6y ago
I'm curious if people choose to do this because they can't get another minimum wage job or if they think they are making more than minimum wage but in fact aren't. Or that they could get a minimum wage job with set hours but they want the gig flexibility.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Reading no further than the title, Amazon wouldn't "keep getting sued" if the employees thought they were getting a fair bargain. The article goes into the details of their grievances.

salawat 6y ago

I'll pay you 25 cents to solve all my problems. Just because demand is there doesn't mean it is either A) practical B ) economical C) moral D) All of the above Learning to differentiate between the lunacy of market signal theory from which reality is abstracted out of and the next big thing is a bit of a learned skill.

drpgq 6y ago
I'm curious if people choose to do this because they can't get another minimum wage job or if they think they are making more than minimum wage but in fact aren't. Or that they could get a minimum wage job with set hours but they want the gig flexibility.