The Labor Pains Megathread

[Josquius]

But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation

Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?

[Sheilbh]

Still we are talking about depending on others' services for doing stuff you could do on your own with a car.

It is a matter of taste. Personally, I miss my car, but in no hurry to get one because there is not much point right now. But I won't be able to hold off forever.

Yeah, weird.

I need to learn to drive because I aspire to be in Tyr's rich class who lives in the country

But I've never felt in my current life that I've needed a car. I enjoy just getting on a train/bus/tube and being able to read or sleep until I get where I'm going. Whether it's for a holiday or just to work. That's nice time for me.

[Tamas]

But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation

Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?

For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.

[Tamas]

If only all the black  people in the Americas knew they didnt have it any different than Tyr when he hated his weekend shifts.

[Razgovory]

But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation

Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?

For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.

What if the contract you signed precludes you from quitting?

[Eddie Teach]

Then it's probably illegal and unenforceable.

[Martinus]

But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation

Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?

For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.

What if the contract you signed precludes you from quitting?

Well, admittedly, in Tamas's favour, such contracts can only provide for a financial penalty for quitting. You cannot be effectively forced to work for someone against your will (I am not talking about stuff like conscription, of course).

[Martinus]

Let's imagine you cannot use taxis regularly, because, you know, you are not stinking rich.

Car is freedom.

Taxis are dirt cheap in Warsaw. A standard fare within the downtown is approximately 5 euros and a trip to the airport from my flat is about 7-10 euros.

Single fare bus/metro tickets are about 1 euro.

[Grey Fox]

Let's imagine you cannot use taxis regularly, because, you know, you are not stinking rich.

Car is freedom.

Taxis are dirt cheap in Warsaw. A standard fare within the downtown is approximately 5 euros and a trip to the airport from my flat is about 7-10 euros.

Single fare bus/metro tickets are about 1 euro.

While that is not expansive, that is not cheap.

[Jacob]

For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.

What if you can't quit because you owe your employee money, due to the contract you signed with them governing the terms of your employment or your place of residence?

What if you can't quit because your employee controls all the jobs you can get to, they control all means of travel into and out of the area, and they control everywhere you can spend your money?

What if you can't quit because your contract says you can't, and you have no access to legal advice as to whether you have other means to escape your contract?

What if you can quit, but you'll starve to death if you do so?

What if you can quit, but the options available to you make staying at your work and accepting sexual harassment, dangerous working conditions, and/or severe long-term health degradation seem the better choice nonetheless?

... all these things should be resolved merely by deferring to supply and demand, and letting the invisible hand of the market do its thing?

[Razgovory]

Well, admittedly, in Tamas's favour, such contracts can only provide for a financial penalty for quitting. You cannot be effectively forced to work for someone against your will (I am not talking about stuff like conscription, of course).

You can of course volunteer for the military.  They typically don't let you out whenever you feel like it.  There are other situations such as when the employer controls the means of egress like on a ship at sea. Generally the only reason you cannot be forced to work against your will is because there are laws forbidding it, not because something innate in the concept of contracts.  Debt bondage has been quite widespread in history still occurs in a lot of the third world.  Tamas wishes to create a clear distinction between the idea of "labor" and "unfree labor". I (and other here), do not see this separation.  Unfree labor is simply a category of labor.  Laws concerning the regulation of unfree labor are laws concerning labor.  That seems self evident.  I understand why Tamas doesn't like this, it puts his ideology in a bad light, and is in my opinion a central flaw in it.

If you wish to create a society where a person has maximum freedom over themselves, then you have to allow them to voluntarily forfeit that freedom if they so choose.  Since you'll have lots who make poor choices in life or are in desperate situations you'll have a large number of people who will end up forfeiting that freedom.  Thus you would have a lot of slaves.

[Admiral Yi]

I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.

But I'll try once more:

Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?

Is this the gist of the crystal clear argument?

[Martinus]

While I sympathise with your side, Raz and Jacob, I think you are moving the post somewhat here.

Sure, the economical coercion exists and this is why Tamas/Yi are wrong. But some of the examples you quote would constitute physical coercion and would be illegal.

While I do recognise a need to protect against some forms of economical coercion - this is not the same as physical coercion.

[Jacob]

While I sympathise with your side, Raz and Jacob, I think you are moving the post somewhat here.

Sure, the economical coercion exists and this is why Tamas/Yi are wrong. But some of the examples you quote would constitute physical coercion and would be illegal.

While I do recognise a need to protect against some forms of economical coercion - this is not the same as physical coercion.

No goal post moving going on. I'm trying to find out where, how, and why (or indeed if) Tamas draws the line on the limit of the actions of the invisible hand and freedom of contracting. Thus there is a range of situations.

Maybe he'll say they are all fine. Maybe he'll say they're all bad. Maybe some are okay, and some are not. I'm interested in his position and the reasoning behind it.

[Jacob]

I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.

But I'll try once more:

Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?

Is this the gist of the crystal clear argument?

It's an attempt to understand your - or at this point, Tamas' - position. It is a question that proponents of a completely free market have to address, one way or the other. Are there things that cannot be contracted away? Do unequal bargaining positions matter or not, including at the extreme?

My argument proceeds differently, depending on the answer. When I was talking to you, I attempted to account for several potential answers, since none was forthcoming.