again, why do you allow unpaid internships or vounteer work to be legal at all? arent you the fucking king of the world that decides everythgin, every decision between anyone? how is an unpaid internship not exploitation (the actual answer is that the worker wants experience, which is also true at low wage jobs, but you dont care what anyone wants except for red) in order to get into the new york marathon, the poeople that run it want me to volunteer at another race. for free! have the gestapo at their office immediately! they expect me to work for nothing! sure i have chosen not to but did i really have that choice? yes? no! business needs workers the exact same way workers need business.
red when i visit my paents they ask me to mow their lawn, and i do. i get paid nothing! call your gestapo because "Expecting someone to work for less is exploitation, pure and simple". i am being facetious, dont call the gestapo. clearly its none of your business. if only you gave a damn about leaving people alone when something is not your concern.
You said that any wage below the minimum wage is exploitative, and that therefore no one should be allowed to offer it. Whether or not a price is exploitative should be left to the buyer or seller to decide, not to third parties such as yourself or government. If I want to work for $5 an hour, and if someone is willing to pay me that, only authoritarians would argue to disallow it. My anecdotal evidence contradicts yours. There is no expectation of anyone to work for less. It's a question of whether or not you dictate prices of labor to conform to some arbitrary definition of fairness and exploitation. What is exploitation to you may be opportunistic for me. Let people decide for themselves what is exploitative and what is not. The fact that minimum wage has been arrived at democratically has no bearing whatsoever on whether it's a wise plan. If you can democratically arrive at a solution that hamstrings minorities while empowering others, then saying "that's democracy" is no defense. With regard to your "ending" anything, I was referring to the attitude necessary to justify minimum wage. The government, sheerly on it's own arbitrary definition of fairness, will criminalize a free negotiation between two parties if it happens to disagree with the price to which they agree to do business. A job seeker is not free to negotiate? That can't ask for more money? Are they mindless automatons who are incapable of looking out for their own interests? If they arrive at the negotiating table, then they have something to negotiate. What they lack in experience they can compensate for in time, or on basis of their talents. If the company offers them a wage they don't like, they are free to ask for a wage that they consider fair. Furthermore, if unskilled labor had absolutely nothing to negotiate with, then they wouldn't ever get a job anyway, even at minimum wage. Minimum wage serves to disenfranchise those who otherwise would be able to get a job at a rate below the price floor, but thanks to government they cannot. The moralizing of the minimum wage proponents reminds me of similar undertones of the abortion debate. Better unemployed than employed at a rate we consider exploitative. Better dead than living a life we predict will seriously suck. I am getting all worked up at the teen unemployment rate falling squarely at the feet of those who advocate a minimum wage. Yes, and until you have sufficient experience and skills to merit the pay that we have arbitrarily established as the minimum allowed by law, you will remain unemployed. The government is ideally in the hands of its citizens. That doesn't exempt it from making poor decisions about what is best for the nation. Correction: Then nobody may work below equilibrium wage. No single formula is going to please every single party to every single contract negotiation. Let the interested parties agree on their own formula, rather than one-size-fits-all approach. WTF is wrong with that? This is exactly what is wrong with that: At it's very foundation, it proclaims that individuals, unable to fend for themselves against an enemy we can't really define, must be protected from their own decisions which might put them at risk. That is a good starting point for the gradual ratcheting back of personal and economic liberty, all in the name of protecting us from ourselves.
Get a goddamn dictionary and look up VOLUNTEER. Not the issue, you dolt. You sound like a petulant child. You are just baiting me now, come back with something that makes sense or be ignored. Tilt. You have gone 'round the bend, amigo.
Its a discussion forum. Either discuss or go find another thread. You don't get to tell me what to discuss, what to think, or what to care about, Adolf.
I did t ask for a defiInition, I asked why you would not allow a man to work for 1$, but allo him to work for 0$. Again I don't need the definition, I want red to explain why a man can choose to work for X, but not for Y, when Y is more than X.
