Benevolence or Exploitation

[stratego]

Pretend there is a situation where the owner of a business (i.e motel) hire bums off the street to do the cleaning work instead of actually hiring workers. He provides the bums a place to stay and $10/day. On one hand he is helping the bums off the street, but on the other hand he is paying below minimum wage.

would you consider that benevolence or exploitation?

 

[Goober]

Exploitation. He should be paying the "Bum" the full minimum wage, as stated under the law.

Then again, it depends what currency that 10$ is, is it U$D, Cdn$ . . . ?

But a place to stay - if the place was nice enough, you could kinda count the place to stay towards his salary, so he might be making something near minimum wage. BTW, was is the "minimum wage" that you are referring to? I know BC has a "training wage" of 6CDN$/hr, and a regular minimum wage of 8Cdn$/hr. I get 8.5Cdn$/hr!!! Oh, and how long would he be working for? It would be fair if he were working for like one hour . . .

 

[KaNick]

If they give the "bums" a place to stay I qould say it is ok. Otherwise it is exploitive. The same argument could be made about child labor.

 

[h4ppy]

It depends of there are any shelters where the bum could live. If not then the bum can make much more than 10 dollars a day.

 

[KaNick]

Yeah and all they have to do is hold out a cup. No messy cleaning or work.

 

[Lifeblood]

Semi-benevolent exploitation. It's not like a bum has the luxury of whining about minimum wage laws anyway. Starvation tends to lower ones standards.

 

[Hayek]

It's neither benevolence, nor exploitation. The employer needs someone to do something for him, so he hires a bum off the street because he thinks that bum can do what he wants him to do. I don't see anything particularly benevolent in that. It's not exploitation either because the bum gets something in return. In this case, a place to live and a few dollars a day.

BTW, what's the minimum wage in the US? Or do different states have different minimum wages?

 

[MrPresident]

It is illegal. Also the people who tend to work for minimum wage are generally not millionaires and desparately in need of a job.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

stratego, I think maybe whats really behind this thread is the whole globalisation debate, where many argue that paying people in the developing world $1 a day to build consumer goods for the consumers of rich industrialised nations is exploitation, and others argue that its benevolence, because those people are being provided with jobs that they normally wouldnt have had. Am I right about that? If so, its interesting. Hope I havent ruined it by the way.

 

[nonconformist]

It is exploitation. Because of their social standing, they are being used as cheap labour as so many people are in this world, by capitalists who exploit whoever they can to get richer. The only reason the people are poor in the first place is because of capitalism! In a world where everyone was equal no such situation would happen.

 

[newfangle]

Seems like a loaded question.

How about a third option:
There is no minimum wage, thus the bums are hired and don't starve to death.

Besides, if the motel owner is forced into paying them minimum wages, why the crap would he hire bums?

Waste-o-thread.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Originally posted by stratego
Pretend there is a situation where the owner of a business (i.e motel) hire bums off the street to do the cleaning work instead of actually hiring workers. He provides the bums a place to stay and $10/day. On one hand he is helping the bums off the street, but on the other hand he is paying below minimum wage.

would you consider that benevolence or exploitation?

Well, he is being benevolent, as the bum would otherwise be unemployed. When your standard of living is very low (the bum), an improvement could still leave you worse off than the average person (the bum making $10 per diem). But, the important part is that the bum is better off than he was before.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

Well it would depend on the value of the accomodation, food, electricity, heat etc. that the bums use. It would probably balance out ok depending on the hours the bum works.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

If the bums agreed to this, how is it exploitation?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

27 definitions of bum

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bum&f=1

 

[stratego]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
stratego, I think maybe whats really behind this thread is the whole globalisation debate, where many argue that paying people in the developing world $1 a day to build consumer goods for the consumers of rich industrialised nations is exploitation, and others argue that its benevolence, because those people are being provided with jobs that they normally wouldnt have had. Am I right about that? If so, its interesting. Hope I havent ruined it by the way.

I really don't understand why you call yourself DUMB pothead

 

[delsully]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
If the bums agreed to this, how is it exploitation?

Because it is a unethical business practice.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I knew it!

( because Smart Pothead would be an oxymoron )

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If he's paying them below minimum wage, it's illegal, isn't it? So of course it's exploitation!

 

[cgannon64]

I think its fine, since he is giving them room and board. That makes up for the rest.