Benevolence or Exploitation

[HighlandWarrior]

should give him $20/day $10 inst enough for food, much less booze. free cable,room, shower, soap, that bum will be living it up.

edit on topic, id say its neither. they both benifit.

 

[amadeus]

I would not sleep in a place where bums are being employed like this. I'd find the quality of their work to be highly suspect and would not rest in such an environment.

 

[onejayhawk]

This type of debate has ruined more worthwhile attempts to get people out of the gutter than anything I can think of. Properly structured, it should be legal. Minimum US wage for 8 hours is about $45.00. If you assess $35.00 as the room and board value. That stretches things a bit, but it could be done.

IIRC there was a program in California during the 1980's that provided a bunk, breakfast and supper. During the day you had to look for work. If you were there three days you owed them a day of chores. It provided a mailing address and shelter for anyone that was not violent. It was closed down as being exploitave.

This is one reason I think minimum wage is harmful BTW.

J

 

[Speedo]

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

If you agree to give me all your money against the threat of death, does it mean I'm not robbing you?

 

[amadeus]

Nobody is being threatened, though. If having him give you his money was optional, then it'd be like this case, but it isn't like that.

 

[KaNick]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I would not sleep in a place where bums are being employed like this. I'd find the quality of their work to be highly suspect and would not rest in such an environment.

I don't see the problem, I don't think their work would be any worse than anyone elses or else the employer would fire them. Unless you have previous experiences with "bum" employees.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Speedo
If you agree to give me all your money against the threat of death, does it mean I'm not robbing you?

Which one of Col's arguments was about false and misleading parallels? If the person being robbed would, once released, seek out the robber to get the same offer again, then it would be a good comparison.

As Pothead says, exploitation is often in the mind of third parties who have no real interest in the situation.

J

PS I find the "dumb" part ironic as well. He can plainly communicate and probably speak.

 

[Pirate]

I think hiring a homeless person for a temporary odd job or two is ok - for example we were moving new furniture and cabinets in our office and hired some men from the charity house next door to help us out for the day and gave them cash under the table. But if we were to hire those men as our permanent cleaning staff, then they are entitled to the protection under the law and should be garaunteed a minimum wage.

Even if the homeless men "agreed" to work for less than minimum wage it could be argued that such an agreement was made under duress (they were compelled to agree under threat of continued starvation, etc...) and thus the agreement would not legally stand.

 

[Stapel]

Great example!

The real question is: Should there be a minimum wage?

The answer to this question is very dependent on a country's social structure.

 

[Achinz]

Originally posted by ShiplordAtvar
Well, he is being benevolent, as the bum would otherwise be unemployed.

It's an indictment on the welfare system in that country. In most developed countries there is a welfare safety net which would at least allow a decent though modest survival standard off the streets. The Oz system requires that dole-receivers look for work (casual or permanent) the pay of which would lead to an adjustment of their dole. That is, the question raised here should not arise.

 

[Achinz]

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

There are degrees of agreement. In an extreme case like this, it may be an agreement to live or die. The pendulum of opinion has now swung to the side of exploitation when looking at the miserable wages in sweat-shops paid to immigrants, illegal or illiterate. The latter seem to have agreed but they don't seem to have any choice.