3 ms·

No, it’s been judged as not worth doing like that by people who have freedom. If you’ve chosen to rescind your freedom, you by extension rescind your right to c

No, it’s been judged as not worth doing like that by people who have freedom. If you’ve chosen to rescind your freedom, you by extension rescind your right to choose not to do work for less than minimum wage.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
If the automation existed that’d be one thing. But as it stands we have trashed streets and jobless bums. Clearly the system isn’t working.
- Retric 2y ago
  You can set minimum wage to zero and you still get trashed streets because trashed streets aren’t considered worth fixing every week. Instead there’s an equilibrium where X money is used to maintain reasonably clean streets and people will just spend less if they already look ok.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    Minimum wage isn’t the issue here. You said 30-50 cents an hour isn’t “relevant” yourself, but haven’t backed that up with anything. They could be paid 0 for all I care, the situation would be the same: folks who have stolen something from society (be it direct financial losses or more abstract things like health and safety and peaceful movement) being made to give retributions back to society for their crimes. There are easy wins here (trash), and more involved projects.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > haven’t backed that up with anything It’s backed up by the finite supply of unemployed people willing and able to work below minimum wage. As to your obsession with clean streets, the government does spend money on it the general public doesn’t actually care enough to spend more on it. It doesn’t matter how cheap it is as long as nobody is willing to fund it.
      - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        Elaborate. As of yet you’ve said nothing to refute the idea that forcing people who aren’t working to start working would result in more work being completed.
        Retric 2y ago
        > Elaborate. As of yet you’ve said nothing to refute the idea that forcing people who aren’t working to start working would result in more work being completed. That’s literally the first time you made that argument, so obviously I didn’t counter it.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        That’s the concept behind the entire discussion. I don’t know how you’ve missed it.
        Retric 2y ago
        Prisons labor is already forced. It’s even an enumerated exception in the constitution. If you argument was simply to send these people to prison then just suggest that. The only thing worth discussing is non prison labor and thus non forced labor.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        Has the parent comment already fallen out of your context window? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41386593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41386593 That’s exactly what I’m suggesting, you’re wasting my time if you can’t even keep track of a basic thread.
        Retric 2y ago
        > out of your context window Nope, the original context: There are no jobs that want jobless people. There's few that even want 18 year olds Your response was: Plenty of work for prison laborers. My response of “at 20-50 cents an hour, but that’s not really relevant here.“ Obviously 20-50 cents is the nominal prison labor rate, but it also excludes the overhead of keeping prisoners which is what makes it “irrelevant” as a cost. Thus by responding to the nominal rate you implicitly acknowledged we are no longer talking about prisoners because the actual cost of prison labor is ~64,000$ / year / inmate not their nominal wage.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago

If the automation existed that’d be one thing. But as it stands we have trashed streets and jobless bums. Clearly the system isn’t working.

Retric 2y ago
You can set minimum wage to zero and you still get trashed streets because trashed streets aren’t considered worth fixing every week. Instead there’s an equilibrium where X money is used to maintain reasonably clean streets and people will just spend less if they already look ok.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Minimum wage isn’t the issue here. You said 30-50 cents an hour isn’t “relevant” yourself, but haven’t backed that up with anything. They could be paid 0 for all I care, the situation would be the same: folks who have stolen something from society (be it direct financial losses or more abstract things like health and safety and peaceful movement) being made to give retributions back to society for their crimes. There are easy wins here (trash), and more involved projects.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > haven’t backed that up with anything It’s backed up by the finite supply of unemployed people willing and able to work below minimum wage. As to your obsession with clean streets, the government does spend money on it the general public doesn’t actually care enough to spend more on it. It doesn’t matter how cheap it is as long as nobody is willing to fund it.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      Elaborate. As of yet you’ve said nothing to refute the idea that forcing people who aren’t working to start working would result in more work being completed.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > Elaborate. As of yet you’ve said nothing to refute the idea that forcing people who aren’t working to start working would result in more work being completed. That’s literally the first time you made that argument, so obviously I didn’t counter it.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        That’s the concept behind the entire discussion. I don’t know how you’ve missed it.
        Retric 2y ago
        Prisons labor is already forced. It’s even an enumerated exception in the constitution. If you argument was simply to send these people to prison then just suggest that. The only thing worth discussing is non prison labor and thus non forced labor.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        Has the parent comment already fallen out of your context window? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41386593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41386593 That’s exactly what I’m suggesting, you’re wasting my time if you can’t even keep track of a basic thread.
        Retric 2y ago
        > out of your context window Nope, the original context: There are no jobs that want jobless people. There's few that even want 18 year olds Your response was: Plenty of work for prison laborers. My response of “at 20-50 cents an hour, but that’s not really relevant here.“ Obviously 20-50 cents is the nominal prison labor rate, but it also excludes the overhead of keeping prisoners which is what makes it “irrelevant” as a cost. Thus by responding to the nominal rate you implicitly acknowledged we are no longer talking about prisoners because the actual cost of prison labor is ~64,000$ / year / inmate not their nominal wage.