It's not as though Amazon is going and pointing a gun at people's heads and telling them to Turk or die.
If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it.
If it's a bad trade for people to exchange their time for the low wage, they shouldn't take it.
EDIT: I realized you are probably looking for that study. I don't think there is a free online version but you can purchase or read the abstract here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912...
Not that it's wrong, but the focus slightly shifts from what the people are feeling to how the problem could or should be solved, and we might take less time or emotional resource to empathize. The situation itself can also be seen less as a tragedy than some sad transitory state waiting to be solved, and we'd be less sorry for someone if somewhere we think it might be just temporary.
I'd too would love to find studies or evidence about this subject.
Edit: A report on the study tomgrunner linked in the sibling comment http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/cwru-era10301...
They may have little choice. You don't seem to understand what it means to be broke and unskilled.
Attacking low paying jobs satisfies our moral outrage, but it doesn't actually help those wrote are left with nothing. We should concentrate in making sure people don't have to choose MTurk out of desperation, and banning it doesn't achieve that.
This doesn't mean Amazon and companies like it are innocent in this situation, of course, but it bothers me that people concentrate on the cosmetics instead of the systemic problems.
Yes it does, the minimum wage goes hand in hand with the social safety net. Banning low wage jobs pushes those with no better choice into the safety net which is better than letting them try and work 90 hour weeks at jobs that don't pay a living wage. This frees up their time to actually do something about the problem rather than being stuck just trying to feed yourself while you work yourself to the bone.
> but they're unable to realize that, so we should decide for them because we know best
They are we, we are they, we're one society and if we democratically set a wage floor, then yes, we know best. That's rather the point of democracy, to remove choice about some things from the individual and make them together because it's better for us all despite what any one individual might choose.
> Or is the safety net not available to them because MTurk exists? Because if it's the latter, I don't see why wouldn't you just make it available, MTurk or not.
You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical. Making money can actually hurt you if you're on the safety net because there's a hole where you're job would disqualify you for benefits that could exceed what the job would pay. Of course that varies state by state so there's no single answer to the question.
So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage. Many have proposed a basic income to avoid this problem.
Or so authoritarians would have us believe.
But, yeah, I get it. You're an authoritarian through and through, and you want to make sure others know who's boss.
Which is exactly why the phrase "tyranny of the majority" exists, and why "democracy" is just a euphemism for "mob rule" at the end of the day.
And this, "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
And just in case you couldn't tell, he confirms his inner monster: "I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it."
So what, am I supposed to look up to this man and accept that Mob Rule is the best way to govern just because he says so?
But whatever man, people will just keep believing what they're believing. But at the end of the day, those who would use violence to enact their own ends will continue doing so.
No.
> You have some fantastic idea for government that doesn't involve pissing off anyone?
No.
> What the hell is wrong with you?
I'm sure lots of things.
> Are you some wackjob hiding in a bunker somewhere plotting the downfall of the governemnt?
No.
If all you can muster are insults, then there's really nothing left to say.
1. It ensures that absolute idiots cannot come to power
2. It reduces conflict ( 'You don't like what the government is doing? Too bad, you voted for it!' ).
The same can be said about labour laws, including minimum wage; by that argument, any discussion on policy change is irrelevant.
And some social programs do paint a better picture, such as the EITC[1].
Besides, my argument is more general than whatever US social programs happen to be in place, since I'm not even from the US or living there.
So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage.
And maybe I would agree with you if I was a labour legislator but had no power on safety net policies. But since my (and, I assume, your) power to change any of them is the same, I don't see how is that relevant.