4 ms·
> If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it. They may have little choice. You don't seem to understand wh
by gnaritas 13y ago
> If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it.
They may have little choice. You don't seem to understand what it means to be broke and unskilled.
- icebraining 13y agoBut isn't that real problem? Not that MTurtk is available, but that people have no better choice? Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. We should concentrate in making sure people don't have to choose MTurk out of desperation, and banning it doesn't achieve that. This doesn't mean Amazon and companies like it are innocent in this situation, of course, but it bothers me that people concentrate on the cosmetics instead of the systemic problems.
- gnaritas 13y ago> Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. Yes it does, the minimum wage goes hand in hand with the social safety net. Banning low wage jobs pushes those with no better choice into the safety net which is better than letting them try and work 90 hour weeks at jobs that don't pay a living wage. This frees up their time to actually do something about the problem rather than being stuck just trying to feed yourself while you work yourself to the bone.
- icebraining 13y agoSo what you're saying is that they actually have a better option, but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best? Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not.
- gnaritas 13y agoI'm not talking about MTurk specifically, but about all below minimum wage jobs. > but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best They are we, we are they, we're one society and if we democratically set a wage floor, then yes, we know best. That's rather the point of democracy, to remove choice about some things from the individual and make them together because it's better for us all despite what any one individual might choose. > Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not. You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical. Making money can actually hurt you if you're on the safety net because there's a hole where you're job would disqualify you for benefits that could exceed what the job would pay. Of course that varies state by state so there's no single answer to the question. So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage. Many have proposed a basic income to avoid this problem.
- burntsushi 13y ago> because it's better for us all Or so authoritarians would have us believe.
- gnaritas 13y agoBelieve what you like, others will too, and the majority will choose.
- burntsushi 13y agoA comment so insightful that you could use it in response to anyone who disagrees with you! Kudos. But, yeah, I get it. You're an authoritarian through and through, and you want to make sure others know who's boss.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jfoster 13y agoThe poorest places do not have safety nets.