[Shikadi]

OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model.

My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer. Hypothetically, some place like Walmart could see a chance to pay less for their workers, and if they actually went through with it then one of the largest employers would be taking a massive chunk of money out of the working class. They're a good example because they're already a burden on tax payers (about 6.2 billion depending on your source) since so many of their workers are on welfare. The reality is, if you let companies exploit workers, they will, and the workers will be happy to be exploited until it's too late. See: Working conditions in China over the past few decades

I'm not an economist, so maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can hopefully put it more eloquently, or maybe even give an explanation as to why I might be wrong

[dahfizz]

> If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer.

I think this statement is trivially true. The question becomes:

1) Are these people being underpaid, and would making them employees increase their pay?

2) Are there no better options available?

I am not convinced of either of these points. Uber's pay seems to be competitive [1]. We also have historically low unemployment. It is easier to get a job now than anytime in the past ten years[2], and much easier than the historical average. The fact that this is the case and people are still flocking to be gig workers should tell you that people want to be Uber drivers, they are not forced into it.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...

[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

[sosborn]

> Are these people being underpaid, and would making them employees increase their pay?

Maybe, maybe not. It would give them access to healthcare and other things a lot of people take for granted.

> The fact that this is the case and people are still flocking to be gig workers should tell you that people want to be Uber drivers, they are not forced into it.

Or, maybe it's an indication that there aren't other jobs available for the people flocking. The want is to make money, not to drive for Uber.

[dahfizz]

> It would give them access to healthcare and other things a lot of people take for granted.

This is something I'm not clear on. Couldn't Uber still hire the drivers and limit them to 39 hours a week? Wage workers don't get benefits like health insurance. Even being a salaried worker does not guarantee health insurance, etc.

Am I missing something? Maybe California's labor laws are different than my states.

[sosborn]

It does vary - but where I am even part timers are included. https://cca.hawaii.gov/ins/faqs-2/hawaii-employers-faqs/

[bko]

The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place.

Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a significantly large employer, the market is not a closed system and things change

Regarding your welfare claim, it depends how you look at it. Walmart is offering these people the best employment opportunity they can get, otherwise they would work elsewhere. If they lost that opportunity which certainly some would with increased costs, they would likely be moved to more generous government benefits.

[jacobolus]

There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values.

> [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy

There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather, they want to provide as little support for employees possible consistent with maintaining their profits. But there are many, many horrific stories of Walmart abusing and taking unethical (often illegal) advantage of employees.

In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.

[AnthonyMouse]

> There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery.

"Selling yourself into slavery" is a contradiction in terms. Willingly exchanging labor for compensation is not slavery. It's just an attempt to frame things in an inflammatory way.

Suppose that someone kidnaps you and forces you to work without compensation for the rest of your life. Suppose that you willingly agree to sign onto $250K in student loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy and which you will never in your whole life be able to pay all back. Is agreeing to work for someone your whole life if they put you through college more like the first one or more like the second one? Clearly the second, I think, but then we see people calling it "selling yourself into slavery" on one hand and the government explicitly subsidizing it on the other.

Agreeing to either of those sets of terms is, of course, problematic. But the problem isn't caused by someone being willing to offer those terms, it's caused by people being desperate enough to accept them. And you can't solve that by limiting their alternatives to whatever even worse option that caused them to choose the objectionable one to begin with. You have to add better alternatives, not remove existing ones.

> In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.

You say "undermine basic worker rights and protections" while they say creating jobs for unskilled workers who would otherwise have to rely fully on government assistance.

[jacobolus]

In practice what happens is the availability of exploitable labor creates incentive for abusive employers (and others in power in the society) to maintain poor conditions among their potential labor pool.

In many (both historical and ongoing) cases the societal abuses this goes with are quite horrific, and the large-scale power imbalances are extreme.

Removing abusive employment relations at a society-wide scale is a strong first step towards helping people out of the kind of desperate situations where such arrangements would seem better than alternatives.

The abstract libertarian fantasy-land where every “consensual” “contract” is mutually beneficial sounds nice if you don’t bother learning the details of specific past and present legal and social systems. In reality these abusive social relations are a nightmare, doing irreparable damage to countless people’s lives.

[bko]

> There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery.

Then think about how bad their alternatives must be

I will say this about Walmart, despite what you say about conditions and low pay, they are still above the board compared to smaller employers. They follow all the labor laws, pay taxes and afford their employees all the rights required by law. The alternatives such as small employers often don't pay taxes and pay their employees under the table, stripping them of legitimacy and rights. So again it depends on what you're comparing them to

[throwaway34241]

If you think about the labor market as a market, individual employers/employees are willing to pay a variety of prices. Some people will be willing to work for $10, 12, or 14/hr, etc and some business can afford to pay $20/hr and some only $10 without going under. So if the labor price goes up from $10 to $12 there will be more workers (since the people willing to work for $12 are now in the pool), and if the labor price goes down from $20/hr to $10/hr there will be more jobs (since business that are only viable at $10/hr will exist now).

Normally the going rate for a given job would be around where supply=demand. If there are too few potential employees, the jobs that can pay $20/hr will get the workers and the jobs that can only pay $10/hr will go under. If there too few jobs, the going rate will go down, and now jobs that can only afford to pay less will be viable.

The danger I see with trying to achieve social progress by mandating every job be a "good job" is that it is very easy this way to create a situation where supply != demand. If you simply mandate no jobs pay less than $20/hr, the businesses that are only viable at $10/hr will go under. But if supply=demand before, and a bunch of jobs disappear, now you have people that can't get a job at all. So you've created some winners, but only at the expense of the people who are least competitive in the job market. And to use Uber as a specific example, sure they can raise their prices, but fewer people will take Uber and the demand for drivers will still be reduced.

This is a simplification of course. Maybe even if the overall market can't afford to pay more, particular companies can, and unions could achieve better price discrimination for labor. Or raising the minimum wage a moderate amount may only have a minimal effect on demand. But I think the overall model of individual employees and employers with individual prices is pretty solid.

If you follow this model, the best way to achieve progress is probably not to ban low-paying jobs from existing. It would be to create a greater number of jobs (some of which are higher paying) and then the low-paying jobs will be forced to either raise their wages or cease to exist naturally. By doing it that way there won't be a job shortage. I think the government still has a major role to play in this, but it's a more complicated one than just mandating what the market price should be for a transaction to be allowed.

China is probably an example of this sort of development. Before the trade war, factories were already moving out of China (to Vietnam, etc) because the wages there have gone up so much. There are certainly many problems and it is certainly not a developed country yet. But the wage (and overall economic) growth over the past few decades has been almost unimaginable [1].

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/china/wages