[ebbv]

Whoah buddy, I wasn't attacking you maybe you don't need to be so aggressive with me?

> First of all, they don't know when setting the initial salary who is a former convict and who isn't.

They don't have to know which individuals are. They put out there that they are willing/happy to hire ex-cons for these jobs and they will get them applying, and accepting lower salaries, lack of benefits, worse working conditions, no union, etc.

The whole "We don't ask people if they were convicted of a felony" is a total charade meant to seem like they are benevolent but in reality they know they are hiring convicts. Which people should do, but they take advantage of it.

> And secondly, what exactly are you proposing would be better for the former convicts than this?

First off, the idea that I'm under some onus to offer a better solution when I call something out as terrible is ridiculous. I don't have to make you a three michelin star meal to tell you Applebee's isn't very good.

Secondly, it's simple and obvious what I'm advocating in my original comment; paying people fair wages and providing them good working conditions and benefits and not taking advantage of their circumstance. Seems reasonable to me?

[EGreg]

I would say that an organization refusing employment on the basis of past convictions does them worse than an organization offering employment to those same people. They are free to decline it if they find "fair wages and good working conditions" at organizations which "are not taking advantage of their circumstance." It's strange to blame the self-interest of the one offering employment without offering an alternative solution.

Applebees may not be very good in your opinion, but it's better than starvation or scrounging for scraps.

That's the problem with simply expressing outrage and not offering any real solutions, while shooting down solutions that people in the situation actually choose, because that's what is available.

[ebbv]

By your logic then if exploitation wages and working conditions are all that's available it's OK because it's all that's available.

I'm saying it's not OK because exploitation is exploitation, and it's immoral. The Koch brothers should be required to pay fair wages and ethical working conditions.

I am providing an alternative scenario you are just refusing to acknowledge it I guess because I'm not a billionaire industrialist who can actually offer jobs to the people being taken advantage of?

[EGreg]

Exploitation is what you choose to call it. The reality is, in your own words, that the ex-convicts are "applying, and accepting lower salaries, lack of benefits, worse working conditions, no union, etc."

Instead of blaming everyone else for collectively causing these people to face worse conditions, you blame the company that offers them employment which they choose over those conditions.

It's illogical. Your blame should properly be on everyone else.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge your alternative scenario. Perhaps one day your alternative scenario will take place, but it will come about as more employers agree to hire ex-convicts, and compete to offer higher wages. But today, it sounds just as much of a solution as complaining that Utah's housing for the homeless isn't a five star hotel. Perhaps one day it will be -- it already is better than any housing was in the 19th century, with refrigerators and air conditioners. But as it is right now, your solution is pure demagoguery with no substance. How do you propose to get from here to there? And in the meantime, do you just deny the ex-convicts the option to take a job working for someone who you claim is exploiting them?

Similarly, would you deny everyone of Palestinian descent the option to get citizenship in the country they were born, eg Lebanon, because it doesn't fit a favored solution (eg waiting for Israel to offer them all a right of return)?

Similarly, would you tell individual African Americans they are powerless victims who need to wait until all institutional racism is solved before they each can do something about eg the 65% single parent household rate? Would you enable them to make a choice of what school to send their kids by allowing vouchers to be spent on private schools or would you deny them the choice and force them to send their kids to failing public schools that face no market discipline? Remember, even if the private schools are no better, you aren't any worse off by offering the parents that choice.

It is very possible to be a liberal and support dignity and increasing individual choice for consumers, employees, stateless refugees and populations facing systemic challenges on a large scale.