"Euvoluntary exchange" is one of the most important ideas of our time. I think an understanding of euvoluntary exchange motivates one to focus on the root cause of a worker having poor alternatives, and not the perceived injustice of a particular opportunity available to this worker.

"The confusion that arises in judging exchanges that are not euvoluntary is understandable, but unfortunate. The observer, seeing the degree of inequality, or desperation of one of the parties to a potential exchange, is actually perceiving a disparity in levels of welfare of the respective BATNAs, or “Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Exchange.” This disparity is a consequence of differences that come before exchange is contemplated, and are not caused by the exchange." - Mike Munger

http://people.duke.edu/~munger/euvol.pdf

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.

>No one is putting a gun to these people's heads and making them do these tasks

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.

Your argument is a total non-sequitur. No one said they shouldn't work, but they shouldn't work for an unjust wage at completely extortionate wages that are highly unjust. It's essentially labor theft.

Desperate people are to blame for being desperate?

So your solution is to take away the job from them? Apparently, the minimum wage laws squeezed them out of the job market and the unregulated online job is their only hope. Or did I miss the part where you volunteered to subsidize their low-value low-skill job? Wait, I know, your solution is to force ME to subsidize their low-value low-skill job, am I right? :D

> Apparently, the minimum wage laws squeezed them out of the job market...

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?

[1] http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

So you fundamentally deny the existence of any activity that is worth less than the minimum wage? Please explain to me how the productivity of a street sweeper magically increases with when the increases in minimum wage.

Please cite where they said that minimum wage laws cost these people their jobs.

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?

Exactly!

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).

Don't I already subsidize them by paying taxes? Large tech companies get subsidized by tax incentives which get offset by the taxes I pay. My taxes also go towards food and housing subsidies for those living below poverty levels.

If it is the only job going then it's not much of a choice.

There's always a choice.

Words mean something based on context, and in this context dying in penury is so universally undesirable that it represents no real choice.

Plomo o plata is technically a choice, but we’re not cruel or stupid enough to allow it be a choice offered to people.

Did you mean ‘plomo o plata’?

I did, it would seem that my spellchecker didn’t. Thanks!

> No one is putting a gun to these people's heads and making them do these tasks.

...mainly because the ones who refused were fired or let go to make room for those who won't.