Comment by imgabe
6 years ago
I am arguing that they would rather be paid some wage rather than have no job available.
A backpacker who just wants to make enough money to get to their next destination probably doesn't want to deal with the overhead of taking on a full-time job and is happy to have the flexibility in exchange for less money.
Fair is determined by the two people who are party to the transaction. If they both agree to it, then they consider it to be fair. If it is unfair, they are free to decline. The opinions of unrelated third-parties about whether a transaction is "fair" are irrelevant.
How many transient backpackers actually work for these companies to fund their immediate journeys and what do they have to do with a debate on localized externalities that they never experience?
No idea. It is probably not anywhere near the number of salaried employees who bully local governments into passing wage laws they will never experience the unintended consequences of. Yet somehow they still feel entitled to decide for other people what working arrangements they should be allowed to make for themselves.
Same question, what does A have to do with B? I've had enough herring today.
4 replies →
Hi. You must be new to HN.
Lots of people with a 200k salary, entitlement, keyboard, and some time, itching yo have a say on how people making min wage should be able to transact.
Nothing new under soviet-harvard education. Please move along.