Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Or, you know, people will rescue them for a fairer price that is still profitable. Perhaps less so.

Some people will lower the price, but not all. The body count will still increase.

[Bauglir]

Or, you know, people will rescue them for a fairer price that is still profitable. Perhaps less so.

Some people will lower the price, but not all. The body count will still increase.

Unfortunately, this is strictly true (if even one person refuses to lower the price accordingly, the body count is one higher than it otherwise would have been). The question you then have to ask yourself is whether the improved quality of life for those who don't die in the desert, the gradual pressure to lower your price as people who do so become more common, and whatever other benefits you can think of outweigh the cost of those who die unaided and/or the cost of providing incentives to go out and find people to rescue.

[Criptfeind]

That is very true. And thus the reason why we need a compromise on issues.

And of course, it may not take into the account people who would rather die then give a blow job, but they would be willing to give a hand job.

...

I think that metaphor has gotten away from me. I mean people who would not take a job at a lower wage then the currant or hypothetical future minimum wage.

[G-Flex]

Or, you know, people will rescue them for a fairer price that is still profitable. Perhaps less so.

Some people will lower the price, but not all. The body count will still increase.

You say that, but if there's still significant money to be made from rescuing those people, it'll happen. Or, in this case, providing services to prevent it. If there are still a significant number of people dying out there because saving them just isn't profitable enough with the reasonable restraints placed upon it, then it's obvious that the private sector isn't going to solve the problem.

[Phmcw]

Note that Nikov's point is : if you don't allow people to ask for blowjobs, there will be less people to wander the desert, and therefore, the body count will rise.

It's somehow true, so a rescue service should be there. Especially since people may be hurt when in the desert, and in no position to provide proper blowjobs.

(We are definitely taking this analogy too far).

[RedKing]

Note that Nikov's point is : if you don't allow people to ask for blowjobs, there will be less people to wander the desert, and therefore, the body count will rise.

It's somehow true, so a rescue service should be there. Especially since people may be hurt when in the desert, and in no position to provide proper blowjobs.

(We are definitely taking this analogy too far).

I think we haven't gone too far enough! We should use the economics of farming mermaids for their valuable body parts instead.

[Leafsnail]

THIS WASN'T MEANT TO BE A METAPHOR JUST A SCENARIO TO DEMONSTRATE THAT CONSENSUAL AGREEMENTS CAN BE EXPLOITATIVE

Nikov said that

you can call it a lot of things, but you can't call it exploitation or oppression. You accepted it. You are now earning a wage in exchange for your time.

And I provided a counter example in which the person may end up "accepting it" but in which I was still very clearly exploiting them.  My implication was that hiring someone for as ridiculously low a wage as $0.25 an hour is also exploitation, although not necessarily in the same way or to the same degree.

That is very true. And thus the reason why we need a compromise on issues.

Exactly.  Set a minimum wage and labour laws to prevent exploitation, but set it at a level which doesn't prevent legitimate employment.

If you really want to take my counterexample further, I'd say that requiring sex acts from people as a rescuer would be banned, and instead you could perhaps receive financial renumeration to cover the costs of your time and expenses at a later date when they have access to the required capital.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

requiring compensation for a service which a person requires to survive and has no alternative will always be exploitative. i instead demand we tax everyone, and compensate the rescuers with that tax money

[Criptfeind]

Askot: What?

Strip away the metaphor and it seems you are saying we should pay companies the lost revenue from hiring at minimum wage. For instance, if some one is hired at 8 bucks, but they normally would only have been hired at a illegal 4, then we pay the company 4 dollars to make up the difference to them.

Actually. That might work in a very very highly socialized nation. To the point where all unemployed are payed a certain amount of money. It might actually save the government money at the same time as increasing the output of that person. But  in most nations it would be a highly expensive program filled with corruption more likely then not.

[Phmcw]

Askot: What?

Strip away the metaphor and it seems you are saying we should pay companies the lost revenue from hiring at minimum wage. For instance, if some one is hired at 8 bucks, but they normally would only have been hired at a illegal 4, then we pay the company 4 dollars to make up the difference to them.

Actually. That might work in a very very highly socialized nation. To the point where all unemployed are payed a certain amount of money. It might actually save the government money at the same time as increasing the output of that person. But  in most nations it would be a highly expensive program filled with corruption more likely then not.

Hmm Waste rather than corruption but globally you're right. We have implemented that in Belgium and we far rather well.
The thing is, that help people when they are at their lowest, and usually they don't keep crappy, minimum wage job forever.
Usually they end up with a better one. If they don't... well they live a pretty decent live, thought they suffer from poverty, because they have health-care and their kid get education without any additional expenses. 

[Fenrir]

The thing is, that help people when they are at their lowest, and usually they don't keep crappy, minimum wage job forever.

That is a very big assumption that you have not supported with anything.

[Phmcw]

The thing is, that help people when they are at their lowest, and usually they don't keep crappy, minimum wage job forever.

That is a very big assumption that you have not supported with anything.

How's that? That's how it goes around here.

[Fenrir]

How's that? That's how it goes around here.

Well, you certainly are not going to convince anyone with “that is how it goes around here,” as we can not be certain that you have analyzed the necessary data and formed a well-reasoned and researched conclusion. Statistics from a credible source would work better.

[Leafsnail]

Come to think of it, education is an interesting point.  What is the Randian line on education and child labour?

[Criptfeind]

I mean corruption on the corporations side if handled incorrectly, but I can see what you mean about waste some times as well.

On Fenrir: What is it you want? Some proof that if held to a minimum of a certain level people have a tenancy to rise? Is that not self evident?

Can some of you other people say if it seems so or not?

Edit: To be clearer. I believe that upward mobility exists and is self evident that is exists.