Once you make this job illegal, what do you think she does then for a job? By taking this job she has revealed that this is her best option. When you make the job illegal, you're forcing her to take a worse alternative.

That's the argument of employers, who introduce that false choice. The option they don't mention is to pay them more.

That's only an option in your imagination; not in the world she lives in.

What is that based on? The employer is making a profit; they can reduce those profits and pay employees more. It happens all the time in response to the labor market.

If the labor market caused employees to be paid more, would the employer refuse? Shut down?

It is based on the idea that the employer is running a business and competing with other businesses to provide the best product at the lowest cost. The employer is operating at the lowest profit he considers acceptable. In your imagination there is some "labor market" which is going to coordinate to bring all these businesses to an impasse. That's not going to happen.

If somehow the labor market was able to coordinate to demand higher wages, the business would have to increase its price. There would be less demand at the higher price. Consequently there would be fewer businesses and fewer workers would have jobs at all.

> The employer is operating at the lowest profit he considers acceptable.

Businesses are profit-maximizing organizations. They operate at maximum profit, not at the lowest! A business's managers don't meet to consider the lowest profit but how to maximize it. Critically, they don't price what they sell at (costs + some profit); the price it for maximum profit regardless of costs.

Some businesses have enormous profit margins, some businesses sell at a loss - many businesses do that regularly (e.g., clearance sales) - because that is the best they can do. Some sell at a loss strategically to gain market share, a common tactic of well-funded Silicon Valley companies.

> If somehow the labor market was able to coordinate to demand higher wages, the business would have to increase its price. There would be less demand at the higher price.

From the business owner's perspective, wages are a cost. Costs, including wages, go up and down all the time. If you make TVs, the price of glass might be X one month and 1.5X the next.

The business brings in revenue, which it splits between costs, investment, and profit. When costs increase, you can raise prices (which reduces demand, as you say, and also drives away customers longer term) or reduce investment and/or profit.

Also, the relationship between price and demand isn't linear; it varies by price and by good/service: Increasing gas prices temporarily may not impact demand much because most people have little choice but to drive, though in the long term they might make adjustments. Increasing candy prices, on the other hand, could have a big impact because most people can easily eat something else.

The employer of the person in the OP has a choice if wage costs increase: Increase prices, reduce investment, or, heaven forbid, reduce profit (reduce their own income).

Profit is not some arbitrary amount chosen by the owner to fund whatever lifestyle he prefers. It is constrained by competition with other businesses. I don't know why you keep suggesting that the amount of profit can be increased or decreased independently of any other factors.

If the profit in this business becomes less appealing relative to other businesses, the owner will change businesses, there will be less competition in this business and the prices will go up. Increasing potential profit.

This is basic stuff. Despite your aversion to business owners making a profit and wishing employees were paid more, introducing non-linearities, loss leaders, price inelasticities or any other complication does nothing to change the fundamental point.

Most of that I didn't say, but it's certainly true that wage increases are commonly absorbed by reducing profits (or investment) rather than closing the business (!) or increasing prices.

Closing a business because wages or any cost go up a bit would be absurd. That is way overstated. Of course there is some undefined point where costs are too high to sustain, but closing and opening businesses is not trading stocks on Robinhood. There are large transactional costs, including to your reputation - investors, creditors, co-workers, business partners, employees, who have invested their precious time, money, and careers and reputations with you, would be very angry (probably they would replace you as CEO and keep going). And how will you pay your mortgage next month?

> the amount of profit can be increased or decreased independently of any other factors

It indeed can be decreased that way, except that the money has to go somewhere - retained earnings (savings), new gardens in the courtyard, even wage increases.

> Closing a business because wages or any cost go up a bit would be absurd.

It is not absurd at all. This is economics thinking. There are always businesses on the margin of staying in business or going out of business. You don't base an argument on the extremes. You look at the marginal cases.

It's only absurd in the scenario you're imagining in which every business is somehow able to make so much profit that it's still worthwhile for them to reduce profits and increase wages. But there are other businesses who are willing to decrease profits to compete with that business. This is the precise mechanism of how profit is constrained and how consumers benefit from competition.

I can't tell you more than I have. Good luck my friend!

This is true, but I also think that the information in the article alone is insufficient to make a judgment.

This salary is over the Philippines minimum wage. It's a legal job like any other.

The people interviewed are not super happy about the content of the job, but none of it seems to be anything more than it being pornography-related.

Nobody's really seeming to cross any lines of illegality as described in the article. This doesn't come close to the kind of conditions faced by Meta's contractors in Africa spying through Meta glasses in private homes.

I would equate this type of job to any type of job that has aspects that some people would never be willing to do.

E.g., I would never be willing to be a window washer. I'm too scared of heights. Same deal with tower construction. But there are plenty of people doing those jobs who don't feel exploited.

The plus side of jobs like this are that you can do this work at home, you can be physically disabled, there's often some level of flexibility of hours, and there's no manual labor.

I'm going to guess that the only scandal here is that the Philippines is 80% Catholic and possibly more conservative than people in the countries where OnlyFans generates its income.

What crosses the line is that, as stated in the article, the job is a dishonest scam towards the clients.

OK. But that isn't the main point of this article. It's only an incidental fact in the description of "how "heartbreaking" it is to get less than $2 per hour...". It doesn't sound as if the woman would be heartbroken at all if she was getting paid $20 per hour.

I didn’t really think so.

I don’t think a significant amount of OnlyFans customers are under any false impression that they’re making a real person horny or that they are engaging in any kind of genuine relationship with a performer.

I think they know that they are paying for sexual interactivity as a service. They are getting what they paid for: someone at the other end conversing with them and semi-custom erotic photo/video content.