Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Prison labour taking private sector jobs

Page 2 of 10 [ 149 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

What do you think of convict labour?
Yay! 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
Boo! 59%  59%  [ 17 ]
Just display the results 24%  24%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 29

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Oct 2012, 11:02 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or raise wages to the point where free legal residents would be willing to accept the work.


According to the article, the prisoners are being paid the US federal minimum wage. And according to one employer in the article, paying 70 percent more than the minimum wage did not persuade free legal residents to take the job.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

03 Oct 2012, 11:29 am

GGPViper wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or raise wages to the point where free legal residents would be willing to accept the work.


According to the article, the prisoners are being paid the US federal minimum wage. And according to one employer in the article, paying 70 percent more than the minimum wage did not persuade free legal residents to take the job.


If the pay were high enough, they would be able to get free legal residents to do the work. For most free legal residents, 170% of the minimum wage just doesn't cut it.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Oct 2012, 11:43 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or raise wages to the point where free legal residents would be willing to accept the work.


According to the article, the prisoners are being paid the US federal minimum wage. And according to one employer in the article, paying 70 percent more than the minimum wage did not persuade free legal residents to take the job.


If the pay were high enough, they would be able to get free legal residents to do the work. For most free legal residents, 170% of the minimum wage just doesn't cut it.


But why is the automatic response that employers should raise wages rather than residents should lower their wage demands? And what if the business isn't profitable with higher wages? Would it be better if it went out of business?



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

03 Oct 2012, 11:54 am

GGPViper wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or raise wages to the point where free legal residents would be willing to accept the work.


According to the article, the prisoners are being paid the US federal minimum wage. And according to one employer in the article, paying 70 percent more than the minimum wage did not persuade free legal residents to take the job.


If the pay were high enough, they would be able to get free legal residents to do the work. For most free legal residents, 170% of the minimum wage just doesn't cut it.


But why is the automatic response that employers should raise wages rather than residents should lower their wage demands? And what if the business isn't profitable with higher wages? Would it be better if it went out of business?


I dunno, why is it that there are people in the USA that can't earn a living wage and have to resort to government aid, crime, or both simply to have a roof over their heads and food on the table?

Getting to and from a job costs money. If you're making less than it's going to cost, it's not worth taking that job.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Oct 2012, 12:23 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
I dunno, why is it that there are people in the USA that can't earn a living wage and have to resort to government aid, crime, or both simply to have a roof over their heads and food on the table?

Getting to and from a job costs money. If you're making less than it's going to cost, it's not worth taking that job.


That may be the case. But wouldn't it be a misnomer, then, to claim that prison labour is taking private sector jobs (the topic of this thread)? If the residents of the country (for a multitude of reasons) do not seek employment in these areas, and if producers cannot raise wages and make a profit, then who loses from employing prison labour?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

03 Oct 2012, 12:33 pm

GGPViper wrote:
But why is the automatic response that employers should raise wages rather than residents should lower their wage demands? And what if the business isn't profitable with higher wages? Would it be better if it went out of business?


Because an employee who works full time hours should be able to be self-supporting on the income that full-time employment generates. If a full-time worker's earnings leave her below the poverty line, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the balance of wages and prices.

As for profitability, why is business pricing its goods and services at a level that cannot sustain the employment required to produce them? If business' profitability is dependent upon exploting marginally employed workers, then to my mind that is a market distortion that ought properly to be stopped. And since what applies to one employer applies to all, it will not be an unfair burden on a single employer, but rather a return to a sustainable wage-to-price balance in the consumer economy.


_________________
--James


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Oct 2012, 1:47 pm

visagrunt wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
But why is the automatic response that employers should raise wages rather than residents should lower their wage demands? And what if the business isn't profitable with higher wages? Would it be better if it went out of business?


Because an employee who works full time hours should be able to be self-supporting on the income that full-time employment generates. If a full-time worker's earnings leave her below the poverty line, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the balance of wages and prices.

As for profitability, why is business pricing its goods and services at a level that cannot sustain the employment required to produce them? If business' profitability is dependent upon exploting marginally employed workers, then to my mind that is a market distortion that ought properly to be stopped. And since what applies to one employer applies to all, it will not be an unfair burden on a single employer, but rather a return to a sustainable wage-to-price balance in the consumer economy.


But outsourcing jobs to countries with vastly lower wages *and* prices would solve that problem, wouldn't it? In which case the US would have no income (and thus no demand) generated by wages in this area from residents, immigrants or prisoners.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

03 Oct 2012, 3:24 pm

GGPViper wrote:

But why is the automatic response that employers should raise wages rather than residents should lower their wage demands? And what if the business isn't profitable with higher wages? Would it be better if it went out of business?


Why should free, legal residents lower their wage demands? Out of a sense of charity to the employer?

And, yes, businesses that are not profitable should go out of business.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

03 Oct 2012, 3:28 pm

GGPViper wrote:
But outsourcing jobs to countries with vastly lower wages *and* prices would solve that problem, wouldn't it? In which case the US would have no income (and thus no demand) generated by wages in this area from residents, immigrants or prisoners.


But then you retool your economy to create employment opportunities in the sectors that you are best positioned to serve.

All OECD countries have undergone shifts from manufacturing to services. Every one of us.

Meanwhile, primary production can't move from the places where primary resources are located or grown and many services must be located at the places where they are to be delivered.

An economy cannot be a steady-state thing. Economies are necessarily organic, and they must demonstrate adaptability.


_________________
--James


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Oct 2012, 3:31 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Why should free, legal residents lower their wage demands? Out of a sense of charity to the employer?


Why should employers raise their wages? Out of a sense of charity to the free, legal residents?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

03 Oct 2012, 4:29 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Why should employers raise their wages? Out of a sense of charity to the free, legal residents?


Because Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:

Quote:
Everyone has a right to:
1. work, free choice of employment, just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment,
2. equal pay for equal work,
3. just, favourable remuneration ensuring for self and family an existence worthy of human dignity, supplemented by other means of social protection, and
4. form and join trade unions to protect workers interests.


A government that does not enact a minimum wage, or that permits a minimum wage such that full time employment that does not place a worker at or above the poverty line violates subarticle 3 of the Declaration.

To my mind the obligation to act does not lie on employers, it lies on government, to enforce a "living-wage" standard on employers--so that all employers and workers start on a level playing field.


_________________
--James


Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

03 Oct 2012, 4:34 pm

Out of curiosity Visagrunt, is the complete text of that declaration available anywhere in a legal fashion?


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Oct 2012, 4:56 pm

visagrunt wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Why should employers raise their wages? Out of a sense of charity to the free, legal residents?


Because Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:

Quote:
Everyone has a right to:
1. work, free choice of employment, just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment,
2. equal pay for equal work,
3. just, favourable remuneration ensuring for self and family an existence worthy of human dignity, supplemented by other means of social protection, and
4. form and join trade unions to protect workers interests.


A government that does not enact a minimum wage, or that permits a minimum wage such that full time employment that does not place a worker at or above the poverty line violates subarticle 3 of the Declaration.

To my mind the obligation to act does not lie on employers, it lies on government, to enforce a "living-wage" standard on employers--so that all employers and workers start on a level playing field.


You failed to provide evidence why the US minimal wage or the outsourcing to countries with both lower wages and prices violates this article...

And what is the poverty line?



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

03 Oct 2012, 5:24 pm

GGPViper wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Why should free, legal residents lower their wage demands? Out of a sense of charity to the employer?


Why should employers raise their wages? Out of a sense of charity to the free, legal residents?


Oh, employers don't have to raise their wages. Free legal residents are free to accept or not to accept an offer of employment. If free legal residents think that the pay is too low, then they are not obliged to take the job.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Oct 2012, 5:26 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Why should free, legal residents lower their wage demands? Out of a sense of charity to the employer?


Why should employers raise their wages? Out of a sense of charity to the free, legal residents?


Oh, employers don't have to raise their wages. Free legal residents are free to accept or not to accept an offer of employment. If free legal residents think that the pay is too low, then they are not obliged to take the job.


There you go again, being logical and reasonable. It is positively un-American.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

03 Oct 2012, 5:30 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Because Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered anthema in the USA. No candidate for public office would dare invoke it, or the media would tear him apart.