[3825]

> What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is.

One suspicion I have is perhaps the people in hiring whether consciously or not believe making the process more difficult improves the signal to noise ratio of applicants. Makes sense when there are 10+ applicants for each open position I think. They don't care about the people they are turning away.

[nonrandomstring]

Optimising for desperation is great if you're building a criminal gang in which most of the day-to-day activities go against a normal person's good moral judgement.

[Bakary]

To some extent a State is a gang, but at a larger and more sophisticated scale. So is any sufficiently large company. The 'criminal' aspect is always a relative measure.

[nonrandomstring]

Some true words.

One should generally prefer criminal gangs elected according to social contract, since they are basically "our* criminal gang.

As for moral relativism - not so much. There's enough consensus for judiciaries and criminologists to define objective criminal behaviours. I think you mean that we exercise more or less tolerance of the criminal behaviour of certain groups.

[Bakary]

It's a bit of both. We discriminate with regards to groups, but the measure of crime shifts quickly. Drugs or sexual orientations become legal or illegal. Killing is legal or illegal depending on whether it is performed in an approved way. Certain types of non-consensual genital mutilation are legal, others illegal. States tend to clash when their conception of justice differ too much. There are foundational concepts that most legal systems seem to share to provide stability, but for anything more complex there are always exceptions. The right to pollute, employment relationships, defamation etc. as soon as you move away from basic disorder removal it becomes more and more relative.