[extropy-chat] Re: Minimum wages laws

[David Masten]

On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 20:36 -0800, The Avantguardian wrote:
> In comparison, a sub-poverty level worker is also
> compelled to perform labor, but not for any one
> specific entity. Instead he is forced to work for
> anybody willing to pay him what meager wages he can
> get.

Which in every case is better than the alternatives - in most countries
this would be prostitution, begging, or subsistence farming.

>  He does not need to fear punishment but is
> instead coerced by threat of starvation and death. His
> employer is not responsible for his well being and
> thus there is no assurance of his basic needs for
> food, clothing, or shelter being met. Indeed, the
> sub-poverty worker seems to be worse-off than the
> slave whilest the sweat-shop owner is better off than
> slave owner because he does not need to invest the
> overhead in buying the slave in the first place. 

Data for modern slavery is rather difficult to obtain, but anecdotal
evidence suggests that they are worse off than sweatshop workers.

Also, there is a good economic reason for an employer making sure
employees get at least a certain level of food and shelter - the cost of
hiring and training laborers. 

> Can somebody show me how this argument is flawed? Is
> sweat-shop labor not cheaper for the businesses that
> employ it than slaves were for slave owners?

Wage labor is generally cheaper, but that has more to do with the
relationship between laborer and manager. Modern industrial labor
generally requires the willing participation of the laborer. The number
of overseers required for slave labor in modern industrial settings is
too high to make slave labor cost effective.

At any rate, you seem to be making the erroneous assumption that
sweatshop laborers are in terrible shape.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p09s02-coop.html
or the longer version:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/53_sweatshop.pdf

Dave