5 ms·

>I just worry that prison labor could easily cross over from being rehabilitative to being exploitative. I think we've already crossed that line. As far as I k

>I just worry that prison labor could easily cross over from being rehabilitative to being exploitative. I think we've already crossed that line. As far as I know, they don't do it directly, but prison lobbying groups have worked hard to increase the use of mandatory minimum sentences, make sentencing harsher, and keep the war on drugs going. To me the line is where prisons go from making use of a labor pool that already exists, to actively trying to increase the size of that labor pool.

csallen 13y ago
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree that the degree to which prisons campaign to increase the size of the prisoner labor pool is indicative of exploitation. Imagine an hypothetical situation in which a prison teaches its occupants to code, pays them market wages, and turns a profit. If demand for programmers was high, this prison would be heavily incentivized to lobby for more prisoners, but you'd be hard-pressed to call the nature of the work "exploitative".
- meric 13y ago
  That can only work if, on average, prisoners in prisons are innately better at programming than programmers in offices. Otherwise there may not be a competitive advantage, there may even be a competitive disadvantage.
  - csallen 13y ago
    Maybe, but the point of my hypothetical isn't to prove that prisoners can be good programmers. It's to show that lobbying for more prisoners doesn't necessarily mean that you are exploiting said prisoners. It simply means they are helpful to you.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Any time you create an economic demand for more prisoners, you are exploiting people some of whom are not prisoners yet.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    That can only work if, on average, prisoners in prisons are innately better at programming than programmers in offices. It's been made abundantly clear in the "10x programmer" threads that there is no valid way to measure programmer productivity, so from where exactly does the speculative average here derive?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Are you kidding? Have you ever been inside a prison? No good can come of this idea. Imagine, just as every other time it has ever been tried, the cheap labor underbids the free-world companies that have to air-condition their offices, and control/prevent worker-worker violence, (raping, killing, and stealing) in order to attract talent. Imagine what that will do to the job market for programmers. Also, isn't the gov't kind of forbidden to compete with private enterprise, especially the skilled labor markets?
  - csallen 13y ago
    You (and every other responder) have taken my comment completely out of context. Read the post I'm responding too. I was putting forth a hypothetical situation to prove a very specific and explicitly-stated point, not suggesting that prisons should enter the tech industry.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      No, I'm not. I replied to your post in the context you provided with your hypothetical example. I stand behind my point for whatever (profitable) industry you wish to apply it to. Or in other words. If a prison seeks to expand its inmate population for any economic reason, that, in itself is exploitation.
      - csallen 13y ago
        You're still arguing against a strawman. The conversation isn't simply about whether or not what prisons do is "exploitation". It's more specific than that. Not is it about whether or not prison lobbying is sending undeserving people to jail. If we were to have that discussion I would likely agree with you. What we're talking about here, however, is whether prison work programs themselves are rehabilitative or exploitative for the prisoners themselves. My claim is that prisons lobbying to get more people into said programs is irrelevant when considering the quality and fairness of the programs themselves.
        deleted 13y ago
- jaxn 13y ago
  How is this different from the call centers that are in prisons now?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    That's a good point. It isn't. These jokers call my home a few times per year. They use inmates on work release, who often try to give you the impression that they are affiliated with a church/charity/etc. They sell normal household products at outrageously inflated prices. http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/ http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/ Also Known As U.S. Disadvantaged Industries, Inc.
- icambron 13y ago
  Manipulating the laws to generate more captives so that you can force them to work for you so that you can make more money is...totally exploitive. That you've thrown in higher pay doesn't change that; it just means they'd treat their slaves better. It's also a silly hypothetical, in that it misunderstands the motive for prisoner labor. Replace "prison" with "community center": > Imagine an hypothetical situation in which a community center teaches its occupants to code, pays them market wages, and turns a profit. Compare potential outcomes. Wouldn't that be a lot easier to run and couldn't you expect much better outcomes? Of course. And it's also true for any other kind of labor; equally paid non-criminals with specific inclinations to the work doing it by choice are going to outperform prisoners if you're paying them equally. Which leads us to the actual reason why prison labor is even a thing at all: because it's coercive and thus artificially cheap. There's no other reason to do it! If prisons had to pay prisoners market wages, there'd be no reason to employ them at all; they could just employ other people. It's just not a valid hypothetical. It's like saying, "we could get rid of traffic problems by not allowing any vehicles on the road."
  - csallen 13y ago
    Slave labor isn't exploitative simply because slave owners campaign against anti-slavery laws. It's exploitative because the slaves themselves are being forced to work against their will. Slavery would not suddenly become more justifiable if its practitioners adopted a vow of silence with regard to its legality. The same applies here. Whether or not prison owners campaign for policies that would put more people in prison is irrelevant to the question of whether those prisoners are being treated fairly.
    - icambron 13y ago
      They're not prisoners until they're captured and put in prison. Thus lobbying for more prisoners is a way of exploiting more people, especially the poor, young black men who are most likely to end up in prison. Similarly, lobbying for the capture of more slaves on the west coast of 18th century Africa is a way of exploiting Africans. Additionally--and I suspect this is what the GP was going for--the lobbying effort clarifies the underlying intentions. The people demanding that prisoners work are doing so not under the banner of exploitation, but under rhetoric about prisoners "giving back to society". That prison organizations are lobbying for more prisoners reveals their real intentions, which is why it's used as evidence of the exploitative nature of the penal system.

csallen 13y ago

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree that the degree to which prisons campaign to increase the size of the prisoner labor pool is indicative of exploitation. Imagine an hypothetical situation in which a prison teaches its occupants to code, pays them market wages, and turns a profit. If demand for programmers was high, this prison would be heavily incentivized to lobby for more prisoners, but you'd be hard-pressed to call the nature of the work "exploitative".

meric 13y ago
That can only work if, on average, prisoners in prisons are innately better at programming than programmers in offices. Otherwise there may not be a competitive advantage, there may even be a competitive disadvantage.
- csallen 13y ago
  Maybe, but the point of my hypothetical isn't to prove that prisoners can be good programmers. It's to show that lobbying for more prisoners doesn't necessarily mean that you are exploiting said prisoners. It simply means they are helpful to you.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Any time you create an economic demand for more prisoners, you are exploiting people some of whom are not prisoners yet.
- rhizome 13y ago
  That can only work if, on average, prisoners in prisons are innately better at programming than programmers in offices. It's been made abundantly clear in the "10x programmer" threads that there is no valid way to measure programmer productivity, so from where exactly does the speculative average here derive?
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Are you kidding? Have you ever been inside a prison? No good can come of this idea. Imagine, just as every other time it has ever been tried, the cheap labor underbids the free-world companies that have to air-condition their offices, and control/prevent worker-worker violence, (raping, killing, and stealing) in order to attract talent. Imagine what that will do to the job market for programmers. Also, isn't the gov't kind of forbidden to compete with private enterprise, especially the skilled labor markets?
- csallen 13y ago
  You (and every other responder) have taken my comment completely out of context. Read the post I'm responding too. I was putting forth a hypothetical situation to prove a very specific and explicitly-stated point, not suggesting that prisons should enter the tech industry.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    No, I'm not. I replied to your post in the context you provided with your hypothetical example. I stand behind my point for whatever (profitable) industry you wish to apply it to. Or in other words. If a prison seeks to expand its inmate population for any economic reason, that, in itself is exploitation.
    - csallen 13y ago
      You're still arguing against a strawman. The conversation isn't simply about whether or not what prisons do is "exploitation". It's more specific than that. Not is it about whether or not prison lobbying is sending undeserving people to jail. If we were to have that discussion I would likely agree with you. What we're talking about here, however, is whether prison work programs themselves are rehabilitative or exploitative for the prisoners themselves. My claim is that prisons lobbying to get more people into said programs is irrelevant when considering the quality and fairness of the programs themselves.
      - deleted 13y ago
jaxn 13y ago
How is this different from the call centers that are in prisons now?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  That's a good point. It isn't. These jokers call my home a few times per year. They use inmates on work release, who often try to give you the impression that they are affiliated with a church/charity/etc. They sell normal household products at outrageously inflated prices. http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/ http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/ Also Known As U.S. Disadvantaged Industries, Inc.
icambron 13y ago
Manipulating the laws to generate more captives so that you can force them to work for you so that you can make more money is...totally exploitive. That you've thrown in higher pay doesn't change that; it just means they'd treat their slaves better. It's also a silly hypothetical, in that it misunderstands the motive for prisoner labor. Replace "prison" with "community center": > Imagine an hypothetical situation in which a community center teaches its occupants to code, pays them market wages, and turns a profit. Compare potential outcomes. Wouldn't that be a lot easier to run and couldn't you expect much better outcomes? Of course. And it's also true for any other kind of labor; equally paid non-criminals with specific inclinations to the work doing it by choice are going to outperform prisoners if you're paying them equally. Which leads us to the actual reason why prison labor is even a thing at all: because it's coercive and thus artificially cheap. There's no other reason to do it! If prisons had to pay prisoners market wages, there'd be no reason to employ them at all; they could just employ other people. It's just not a valid hypothetical. It's like saying, "we could get rid of traffic problems by not allowing any vehicles on the road."
- csallen 13y ago
  Slave labor isn't exploitative simply because slave owners campaign against anti-slavery laws. It's exploitative because the slaves themselves are being forced to work against their will. Slavery would not suddenly become more justifiable if its practitioners adopted a vow of silence with regard to its legality. The same applies here. Whether or not prison owners campaign for policies that would put more people in prison is irrelevant to the question of whether those prisoners are being treated fairly.
  - icambron 13y ago
    They're not prisoners until they're captured and put in prison. Thus lobbying for more prisoners is a way of exploiting more people, especially the poor, young black men who are most likely to end up in prison. Similarly, lobbying for the capture of more slaves on the west coast of 18th century Africa is a way of exploiting Africans. Additionally--and I suspect this is what the GP was going for--the lobbying effort clarifies the underlying intentions. The people demanding that prisoners work are doing so not under the banner of exploitation, but under rhetoric about prisoners "giving back to society". That prison organizations are lobbying for more prisoners reveals their real intentions, which is why it's used as evidence of the exploitative nature of the penal system.