No one is putting a gun to these people's heads and making them do these tasks. I believe both sides are to blame. The employer for asking the job to be done for basically nothing and the fool who agrees to it.
Well actually your taxes subsidy major tech companies like Intel and Google, if you do not work and eat you will die, if you work and refuse to pay subsidies through taxes to major tech companies, the IRS will show up at your door, if you do not answer them, you will get a gun pointed at your head.
If you can’t afford to pay someone an already offensively low cost of $7.25 an hour or even $15 an hour, I mean, how badly is your business being run?
This is essentially wild-west sweatshop extortion that is exploiting desperate people. It is totally unethical and unjust.
These companies should be offering a reasonable wage for a reasonable amount of work. Not 0.80$ for an hour of work (that is totally unjust).
Actually the disconnect between productivity and pay [1] probably squeezed them out of the job marker. When workers are producing more, but not making more money, there's no one to buy all the extra goods and services they produce. Companies and investors end up banking all the excess instead of investing in additional production.
> ...and the unregulated online job is their only hope.
So supply-side economics has failed (as predicted), but the solution is to revert to industrial revolution era labor laws? That doesn't really follow.
> Wait, I know, your solution is to force ME to subsidize their low-value low-skill job, am I right?
Well why not? Everybody else is already subsidizing your "high-value, high-skill" job through limits on skilled immigration and stringent IP laws. Share and share alike, right?
Plomo o plata is technically a choice, but we’re not cruel or stupid enough to allow it be a choice offered to people.
...mainly because the ones who refused were fired or let go to make room for those who won't.