But isn't that real problem? Not that MTurtk is available, but that people have no better choice?
Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. We should concentrate in making sure people don't have to choose MTurk out of desperation, and banning it doesn't achieve that.
This doesn't mean Amazon and companies like it are innocent in this situation, of course, but it bothers me that people concentrate on the cosmetics instead of the systemic problems.
> Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing.
Yes it does, the minimum wage goes hand in hand with the social safety net. Banning low wage jobs pushes those with no better choice into the safety net which is better than letting them try and work 90 hour weeks at jobs that don't pay a living wage. This frees up their time to actually do something about the problem rather than being stuck just trying to feed yourself while you work yourself to the bone.
So what you're saying is that they actually have a better option, but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best?
Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not.
I'm not talking about MTurk specifically, but about all below minimum wage jobs.
> but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best
They are we, we are they, we're one society and if we democratically set a wage floor, then yes, we know best. That's rather the point of democracy, to remove choice about some things from the individual and make them together because it's better for us all despite what any one individual might choose.
> Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not.
You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical. Making money can actually hurt you if you're on the safety net because there's a hole where you're job would disqualify you for benefits that could exceed what the job would pay. Of course that varies state by state so there's no single answer to the question.
So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage. Many have proposed a basic income to avoid this problem.
That's rather the point of democracy, to remove choice about some things from the individual and make them together because it's better for us all despite what any one individual might choose.
Which is exactly why the phrase "tyranny of the majority" exists, and why "democracy" is just a euphemism for "mob rule" at the end of the day.
He also said, "I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilized and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race."
And this, "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
And just in case you couldn't tell, he confirms his inner monster: "I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it."
So what, am I supposed to look up to this man and accept that Mob Rule is the best way to govern just because he says so?
But whatever man, people will just keep believing what they're believing. But at the end of the day, those who would use violence to enact their own ends will continue doing so.
You'd rather the minority rule? You have some fantastic idea for government that doesn't involve pissing off anyone? You whine about mob rule and democracy as if it's evil or something when it is in fact the best form of government we've figured out yet, despite it's flaws. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you some wackjob hiding in a bunker somewhere plotting the downfall of the government?
Yes, so it is relevant to note that democracy does not prove rightness or wrongness of an idea. As many others have pointed out, democracy is the best form of government because of two reasons :
1. It ensures that absolute idiots cannot come to power
2. It reduces conflict ( 'You don't like what the government is doing? Too bad, you voted for it!' ).
You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical.
The same can be said about labour laws, including minimum wage; by that argument, any discussion on policy change is irrelevant.
And some social programs do paint a better picture, such as the EITC[1].
Besides, my argument is more general than whatever US social programs happen to be in place, since I'm not even from the US or living there.
So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage.
And maybe I would agree with you if I was a labour legislator but had no power on safety net policies. But since my (and, I assume, your) power to change any of them is the same, I don't see how is that relevant.
They may have little choice. You don't seem to understand what it means to be broke and unskilled.