3 ms·

"Paying well" is relative. There are lots of industries that are rightly considered exploitative from the western eye, but people who are working these jobs wou

by paxys 2y ago

"Paying well" is relative. There are lots of industries that are rightly considered exploitative from the western eye, but people who are working these jobs would otherwise be starving or relying on meager government handouts if they went away.

fennecbutt 2y ago
Only because we let 1% take from us and are easily distracted by petty race, sexuality, gender, immigration squabbles. The rich often pay 0% tax but we're still doing nothing about it. We'll never do anything about it.
teachrdan 2y ago
This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." I have no idea what the case was in this specific industry in India. But in many developing countries, first world companies collaborate with government and pay off private muscle to make it impossible for workers to organize and earn anything in that middle ground. (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) Reminds me of the Libertarian Police Department (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...): > "Do we have any leads?” > “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” > “Easy, chief,” I said. “-Any- rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” > He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
- eru 2y ago
  > This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." That's what labour market competition between employers (or employment opportunities, because people can strike out on their own) is for. More and stiffer competition is better. > (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) I don't know what definition of 'fair' you want to use here. It's taken voluntarily in some sense. But so is the choice between starving vs cannibalism, if you have no other options. So that's not a very useful distinction. If you want to help people, you not to improve their options, make sure that better options can be provided. That's very different from outlawing bad options, and just the opposite. (Ie giving the would-be cannibal access to some bread is actually helpful. Just banning cannibalism on the lifeboat only leads to starvation, if there are no other options.) Conditions in the ship breaking industry will improve as other industries compete for workers with them. For comparison, have a look at the working conditions of eg nannies in England today vs 800 years ago. They do essentially the same job, but get paid so much more in real terms. And not out of any generosity by their employers. (You can pick many other professions, too.)
numpad0 2y ago
> but people who are working these jobs would otherwise be starving That's extortion...
- Retric 2y ago
  I don’t think you understand what that word means. Extortion isn’t simply any negative consequence. A dentist requiring payment before preforming surgery didn’t cause your tooth decay and they have no obligation to help you. Same deal here, someone offering a job is offering the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship, but that’s as far as it goes.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    By that logic it's up to you to die or not from being shot in the face. That's like 18th-19th century or earlier model of world. > A dentist ... have no obligation to help you. btw, this is region dependent. Medical services are just businesses in the US, but doctors are obligated to provide emergency cares by law in many regions.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > By that logic it's up to you to die or not from being shot in the face. No that’s an issue directly caused by a 3rd party. Hunger is imposed not by an individual but by biology. > doctors are obligated to provide emergency cares by law in many regions. There’s some confusion around what is the responsibility of an emergency room and individuals, but UK, USA, Canada, Singapore, etc don’t require doctors to act in an emergency. The US requires emergency rooms to protect treatment in an actual emergency but not everything qualifies. https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtala/emtala-fact-sheet#:~:text=Emergency%20Physicians'%20Duty%20to%20Care%20for%20Anyone%2C%20Anytime&text=But%2C%20emergency%20departments%20are%20unique,status%20or%20ability%20to%20pay https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtal.... Every country is different but few require doctors to act in an Emergency and non for general care, it’s basically a handful of European countries and Australia. Even then it’s a minimal level of treatment.
  - 2y ago
jordanb 2y ago
What were the people of Alang doing before shipbreaking? Were they starving? We know from the history of enclosure that the starvation was an intentional strategy to compel people into wage work. There were guides to how to do enclosure that advised lords against planting fruit trees, because the peasants would eat the fruit from the trees and therefore not want to engage in work.

by paxys 2y ago

fennecbutt 2y ago

Only because we let 1% take from us and are easily distracted by petty race, sexuality, gender, immigration squabbles. The rich often pay 0% tax but we're still doing nothing about it. We'll never do anything about it.

teachrdan 2y ago

This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." I have no idea what the case was in this specific industry in India. But in many developing countries, first world companies collaborate with government and pay off private muscle to make it impossible for workers to organize and earn anything in that middle ground. (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)

FireBeyond 2y ago
> (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) Reminds me of the Libertarian Police Department (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...): > "Do we have any leads?” > “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” > “Easy, chief,” I said. “-Any- rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” > He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
eru 2y ago
> This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." That's what labour market competition between employers (or employment opportunities, because people can strike out on their own) is for. More and stiffer competition is better. > (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) I don't know what definition of 'fair' you want to use here. It's taken voluntarily in some sense. But so is the choice between starving vs cannibalism, if you have no other options. So that's not a very useful distinction. If you want to help people, you not to improve their options, make sure that better options can be provided. That's very different from outlawing bad options, and just the opposite. (Ie giving the would-be cannibal access to some bread is actually helpful. Just banning cannibalism on the lifeboat only leads to starvation, if there are no other options.) Conditions in the ship breaking industry will improve as other industries compete for workers with them. For comparison, have a look at the working conditions of eg nannies in England today vs 800 years ago. They do essentially the same job, but get paid so much more in real terms. And not out of any generosity by their employers. (You can pick many other professions, too.)

numpad0 2y ago

> but people who are working these jobs would otherwise be starving That's extortion...

Retric 2y ago
I don’t think you understand what that word means. Extortion isn’t simply any negative consequence. A dentist requiring payment before preforming surgery didn’t cause your tooth decay and they have no obligation to help you. Same deal here, someone offering a job is offering the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship, but that’s as far as it goes.
- numpad0 2y ago
  By that logic it's up to you to die or not from being shot in the face. That's like 18th-19th century or earlier model of world. > A dentist ... have no obligation to help you. btw, this is region dependent. Medical services are just businesses in the US, but doctors are obligated to provide emergency cares by law in many regions.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > By that logic it's up to you to die or not from being shot in the face. No that’s an issue directly caused by a 3rd party. Hunger is imposed not by an individual but by biology. > doctors are obligated to provide emergency cares by law in many regions. There’s some confusion around what is the responsibility of an emergency room and individuals, but UK, USA, Canada, Singapore, etc don’t require doctors to act in an emergency. The US requires emergency rooms to protect treatment in an actual emergency but not everything qualifies. https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtala/emtala-fact-sheet#:~:text=Emergency%20Physicians'%20Duty%20to%20Care%20for%20Anyone%2C%20Anytime&text=But%2C%20emergency%20departments%20are%20unique,status%20or%20ability%20to%20pay https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtal.... Every country is different but few require doctors to act in an Emergency and non for general care, it’s basically a handful of European countries and Australia. Even then it’s a minimal level of treatment.
- 2y ago

jordanb 2y ago

What were the people of Alang doing before shipbreaking? Were they starving? We know from the history of enclosure that the starvation was an intentional strategy to compel people into wage work. There were guides to how to do enclosure that advised lords against planting fruit trees, because the peasants would eat the fruit from the trees and therefore not want to engage in work.