| > This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." That's what labour market competition between employers (or employment opportunities, because people can strike out on their own) is for. More and stiffer competition is better. > (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) I don't know what definition of 'fair' you want to use here. It's taken voluntarily in some sense. But so is the choice between starving vs cannibalism, if you have no other options. So that's not a very useful distinction. If you want to help people, you not to improve their options, make sure that better options can be provided. That's very different from outlawing bad options, and just the opposite. (Ie giving the would-be cannibal access to some bread is actually helpful. Just banning cannibalism on the lifeboat only leads to starvation, if there are no other options.) Conditions in the ship breaking industry will improve as other industries compete for workers with them. For comparison, have a look at the working conditions of eg nannies in England today vs 800 years ago. They do essentially the same job, but get paid so much more in real terms. And not out of any generosity by their employers. (You can pick many other professions, too.) |