"Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices."
That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of low-wage workers.
My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly, because the argument really isn't about "fair-wage", it's more about "entitlement" so people see it as some sort of loss instead of a huge gain in a market that really isn't favoring them at the moment.
> My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly
...because its been done before, became widely and accurately recognized as de facto slavery, and the key components of such schemes outlawed.
An example from late 19th century Mexico: Tiendas de Raya.
The drill worked like this. You live in a poverty riden rural area, and an "enganchador" (lit. hooker, but its kind or a recruiter) comes town and offers you a job elsewhere. You sign up and leave with this guy.
Upon arrival, you learn that you have to pay for the recruiter fee, which is always more than whatever money managed you brought with you for the trip. So your options are either debtors prison or ask your new boss for a single early payment. It's day one and you start in the red.
You are new in town, nobody knows you and will not do business with you unless you bring money upfront. That is, nobody except for "la tienda de raya" your bosse's personal side business, that is happy to extend you a credit line with your paycheck ("la raya") as warranty. Everything is more expensive there, but they will give you everything you need because you are "one of the bosse's men".
So, you are down the hole and digging. An extremely unusual degree of self control over a lengthy period of time is required to cut down your consumption enough so that you will sometime pay your debt. If you manage to do that, you will be able to shop at the same stores as normal people does, and benefit from it. But you will always have the temptation of going to the tienda de raya again for special one of purchases (like that special dress for your daughters wedding), or if the inevitable event of life set you back (like if you need to have a tooth extracted and end up short of cash before the next pay check).
And if you ever try to quit, or loose your job, it is debtor's prison again.
> Daycare, longings, travel, food, medical care, all free (or more accurately included in your paycheck).
Or, more accurately still, the amount of those things that the company decides that you should get without paying extra replaces the bulk of your paycheck. Anything more you want you have to buy with the pittance that remains (or on credit), from suppliers you have access to given the travel, communications, etc., that the company chooses allow you access to through the companies "free" and paid services -- which, usually, means through the company itself. Which, of course, gives the company incentive to ensure that what is provided in the "free" allowance is inadequate.
Company towns are near perfect walled gardens, and exhibit all the problems that walled gardens usually demonstrate.
It sound pretty Utopian to me. The problem with giving full control of the means needed for your own existence to some external entity (even a "Benevolent Tyrant"), is that when that entity begins making unreasonable demands you will be compelled to say "yes" under duress.
Individuals here make it seem as if the inhabitants of this town will be given the choice "work here and take what we give or die/starve/be broke"...as if it's a bad thing. Now, fine, sure, we all want to live in a nice world where people don't need to make such a choice. But we do it all the time when we live life.
Every thing I do, and every choice I make, has an implicit "do this, or you will suffer" rationality behind it. I choose (and other things) to work so I will not suffer, so I can provide for my loved ones and have them not suffer. But you don't see me complaining about being held captive, or being forced to agree to work under duress. Of course not.
"Sometimes I do what I want to. The rest of the time, I do what I have to."
The big reason is that a scumbag company then realizes that there's a lot of money that they're just giving to people. Why do we have to take care of them when we can completely fuck them over?
In a company town, the real problem is that the company is simultaneously the authority and trying to make a profit. It's like making ExxonMobil an environmental protection agency; there's a conflict of interest. Sure, an inspired CEO or manager can make a difference for a while, but the lure of extra profits will win out eventually.
The way this works is through easy availability of credit and high interest. Since you have your workers in debt to you, you're effectively paying them less because they have to pay off the debt. Now, instead of paying them 8 bucks an hour, you're actually paying them 6 bucks an hour because a quarter of their income is going toward paying off their debts. As debts mount, you're now paying them 4 bucks an hour. You can further speed this process along by overcharging for goods and services. After all, you can do that because you're the only one in the region who offers them.
It doesn't have to be like this, but it's very easy for a manager to say, "Hey, we're leaving forty million dollars on the table here. You like money, right?"
Consult your history--even in the event where going there was a choice, there are many, many ways to rig the game so that it becomes economically infeasible to leave again.
You also assume that people have free choice; when you're near flat broke, it's easy to miss your other options.
I see, so you're going to argue against historical company towns instead of my as-yet-undetermined suggestion. Do you honestly think a civilized country or informed internet would allow a company town to exist if it behaved like the historical company towns? They'd be up in arms as soon as they found out.
Though, to be fair. We have "company towns" right now in Dubai and those oil-rich middle-east cities. Guess who's turning a blind eye? The government's where the cities are, and the governments of those immigrants being taken advantage of. They're ignored by both sides.
> Do you honestly think a civilized country or informed internet would allow a company town to exist if it behaved like the historical company towns?
If you want to propose something that is distinct from the historical phenomenon labelled "company towns", I suggest you use a different name (though your description seems to fit exactly into the historical mold, so I'm not going to be convinced that there is a meaningful difference unless you have a concrete explanation as to how your model would avoid recurrence of those problems once the laws put in place that would prevent anything on that model in most US jurisdictions that were motivated by the experience of company towns, such as state and federal laws imposing minimum wages and requiring that such be paid in cash or equivalents, were repealed to allow your new-model company towns.)
> Do you honestly think a civilized country or informed internet would allow a company town to exist if it behaved like the historical company towns?
Well, no, absent compelling arguments otherwise, I'm rather convinced that a country that allowed "company towns" as you have described them, given the historical experience that demonstrates the problems with that model, would, in that respect at least, be, ipso facto, uncivilized.
Seems like a fair question, one I'd like a thorough answer to. Not sure why the downvote. I can see why there are downsides, sure, but the slavery comparison would need more support.
If workers really didn't have any bargaining power then they'd all be paid minimum wage, whereas in reality just 5% do. Workers are not fungible, people don't start being productive until they learn the ropes and some people are better or worse at their job even after training.
In reality, they don't get these things from the government. I suppose "private-company run debit cards systems, private-company run day care, private-company run medical facilities, private-entity run education programs, etc." paid for with a stipend or debit card issued and funded by the government qualifies as "via the government."
However, as is so often the case when "welfare" or a social safety net comes up, especially in America, what is technically true by a parsimonious and context-free reading of the facts is, in practice, not fundamentally relevant (or even completely true).
That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of low-wage workers.
My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly, because the argument really isn't about "fair-wage", it's more about "entitlement" so people see it as some sort of loss instead of a huge gain in a market that really isn't favoring them at the moment.