Which situation is preferable? (true story)

[Richard]

This is a true story.

Up to very recently, a white family that owned some land in South Africa employed about 500 black laborers.  The farm was doing very well.  All the black laborers had a house (per family), built and paid for by the white owners of the land.  Food was also provided by the white owners and it was cooked collectively like a big family in the afternoon and in the evening.  Clothes were available as needed, free of charge, to the black people.  The wages paid to the laborers were not a lot though.  However, since everything was provided, everyone was quite happy and content and no one needed a thing.

Situation 1: as described above

Situation 2: In steps the South African government, and raises the minimum wage substantially.  The government also prohibits things such as food and accomodation from being included in wage calculations.  As a result, this particular family was forced to fire about 1/2 of all the laborers.  The rest were evicted so that the houses could be demolished for more farm land to increase revenue to offset the increased wages.  Free food was canceled.  Free clothing was canceled.  Those that were fired are now unemployed in a country with no welfare.  They now have to resort to stealing food just to survive (unemployment is over 40%, probably closer to 70%).  Of the 1/2 that are still working, everyone is unhappy because they can't afford houses, clothes, and food with the minimum wage.  The owners are unhappy because they are no longer profitable because they can't hire enough laborers.  They are now thinking of packing their bags and leaving, firing the rest.


Which of the above two situations described above is preferable?



This is so sad to see this happening.

[A18]

No minimum wage is always preferable, so I don't even have to read that.

[Richard]

No minimum wage is always preferable, so I don't even have to read that.

Read it and weep for humanity. :/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can you make this poll more biased?

[Richard]

Can you make this poll more biased?

I am not quite sure how this poll is biased.  I gave you the story, before and after the government intervered in the economics.  Make your choice.

[Alcon]

Wow, I didn't know government made decisions based on 0.0001% of their citizens nowadays.

[Ebowed]

Obviously an employer should be allowed to include food or accomodation as part of a salary.  But yeah, what Alcon said.

[Richard]

This is hardly an isolated story.  Thousands and thousands of white farmers employs thousands and thousands of black laborers.  Almost all do what is generally done: provide food, shelter, and clothing, with an "allowance" instead of wages.  Now ...

[Gabu]

This is hardly an isolated story.  Thousands and thousands of white farmers employs thousands and thousands of black laborers.  Almost all do what is generally done: provide food, shelter, and clothing, with an "allowance" instead of wages.  Now ...

It seems to me that the major problem here is that they can't count food, shelter, and clothing as wages, not that the minimum wage was raised.

[Richard]

This is hardly an isolated story.  Thousands and thousands of white farmers employs thousands and thousands of black laborers.  Almost all do what is generally done: provide food, shelter, and clothing, with an "allowance" instead of wages.  Now ...

It seems to me that the major problem here is that they can't count food, shelter, and clothing as wages, not that the minimum wage was raised.

Clothing - second hand.. no real value
Houses - once ammortized, as is likely, no value

That leaves food.


You still have a major problem.

[Alcon]

This is hardly an isolated story.  Thousands and thousands of white farmers employs thousands and thousands of black laborers.  Almost all do what is generally done: provide food, shelter, and clothing, with an "allowance" instead of wages.  Now ...

It seems to me that the major problem here is that they can't count food, shelter, and clothing as wages, not that the minimum wage was raised.

Clothing - second hand.. no real value
Houses - once ammortized, as is likely, no value

That leaves food.


You still have a major problem.

Well, if they aren't spending money on clothes, why should that get them a discount...?

[Richard]

This is hardly an isolated story.  Thousands and thousands of white farmers employs thousands and thousands of black laborers.  Almost all do what is generally done: provide food, shelter, and clothing, with an "allowance" instead of wages.  Now ...

It seems to me that the major problem here is that they can't count food, shelter, and clothing as wages, not that the minimum wage was raised.

Clothing - second hand.. no real value
Houses - once ammortized, as is likely, no value

That leaves food.


You still have a major problem.

Well, if they aren't spending money on clothes, why should that get them a discount...?

Because of opportunity cost.

[patrick1]

It is better to be poor and hungry than some pet of the ruling classes.

[Richard]

It is better to be poor and hungry than some pet of the ruling classes.

The white employer is hardly ruling the country.

[patrick1]

It is better to be poor and hungry than some pet of the ruling classes.

The white employer is hardly ruling the country.

I was really speaking about the Apartheid era.  It may be true that many people's lives have been negatively impacted sans Boer rule but I dislike the condescending notion that the black people need to be saved from themselves.  The White Mans Burden is a tried and true rhetorical ruse.

Sorry about the abuse of verbiage.

[Redefeatbush04]

The first one.

By "employed" do you actually mean employed or do you mean held captive and not allowed to be free. The wording seems a little biased.

[opebo]

Obviously any unemployment 'caused' by minimum wages (that causative relationship is an enormous assumption), can be taken care of by a generous welfare state paid for by taxes on the owners.

[Richard]

The first one.

By "employed" do you actually mean employed or do you mean held captive and not allowed to be free. The wording seems a little biased.

Anyone can walk if they so choose.

[Richard]

Obviously any unemployment 'caused' by minimum wages (that causative relationship is an enormous assumption), can be taken care of by a generous welfare state paid for by taxes on the owners.

Who?  There are like 2 million white people in the country that can be taxed.  They're either leaving the country or simply not interested in providing employment any more.  Where is the government supposed to get the money?  Over 70% of the people do not pay any taxes.  In Sweden, you have over 95% of the people paying taxes.  How do you want to sustain it?  Where is the money supposed to come from?  Do you realize that resources are scarce?

[opebo]

Obviously any unemployment 'caused' by minimum wages (that causative relationship is an enormous assumption), can be taken care of by a generous welfare state paid for by taxes on the owners.

Who?  There are like 2 million white people in the country that can be taxed.  They're either leaving the country or simply not interested in providing employment any more.  Where is the government supposed to get the money?  Over 70% of the people do not pay any taxes.  In Sweden, you have over 95% of the people paying taxes.  How do you want to sustain it?  Where is the money supposed to come from?  Do you realize that resources are scarce?

Well, of course in South Africa everything must be adjusted to a lower level due to poverty.  The minimum wage needn't be the $15/hour it should be in the US.  But there should certainly be redistribution from the owners of South Africa to their serfs.

[Richard]

Obviously any unemployment 'caused' by minimum wages (that causative relationship is an enormous assumption), can be taken care of by a generous welfare state paid for by taxes on the owners.

Who?  There are like 2 million white people in the country that can be taxed.  They're either leaving the country or simply not interested in providing employment any more.  Where is the government supposed to get the money?  Over 70% of the people do not pay any taxes.  In Sweden, you have over 95% of the people paying taxes.  How do you want to sustain it?  Where is the money supposed to come from?  Do you realize that resources are scarce?

Well, of course in South Africa everything must be adjusted to a lower level due to poverty.  The minimum wage needn't be the $15/hour it should be in the US.  But there should certainly be redistribution from the owners of South Africa to their serfs.

How?  You have 2 million people with a middle class of living (the whites), and 45 million + people with that are poor.  Even if you take 70% of the income of businesses and whites, there is simply not enough money to put all that is unemployed on welfare.  How do you propose to solve the situtaiton?

[opebo]

Obviously any unemployment 'caused' by minimum wages (that causative relationship is an enormous assumption), can be taken care of by a generous welfare state paid for by taxes on the owners.

Who?  There are like 2 million white people in the country that can be taxed.  They're either leaving the country or simply not interested in providing employment any more.  Where is the government supposed to get the money?  Over 70% of the people do not pay any taxes.  In Sweden, you have over 95% of the people paying taxes.  How do you want to sustain it?  Where is the money supposed to come from?  Do you realize that resources are scarce?

Well, of course in South Africa everything must be adjusted to a lower level due to poverty.  The minimum wage needn't be the $15/hour it should be in the US.  But there should certainly be redistribution from the owners of South Africa to their serfs.

How?  You have 2 million people with a middle class of living (the whites), and 45 million + people with that are poor.  Even if you take 70% of the income of businesses and whites, there is simply not enough money to put all that is unemployed on welfare.  How do you propose to solve the situtaiton?

You provide what you can.  As a last resort, eat the whites.

[AuH2O]

That's the current strategy.

Problem: when the whites are gone, you lose.

Result: Africans are losing, very, very badly. Large swathes of the contintent will be depopulated in the not-too-distant future.

I'd feel sorrier for them, but it's their fault.

[TeePee4Prez]

It is better to be poor and hungry than some pet of the ruling classes.

The white employer is hardly ruling the country.

I was really speaking about the Apartheid era.  It may be true that many people's lives have been negatively impacted sans Boer rule but I dislike the condescending notion that the black people need to be saved from themselves.  The White Mans Burden is a tried and true rhetorical ruse.

Sorry about the abuse of verbiage.

Agreed. 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The first situation, minus the racial element, sounds like communism.   Is that what you are advocating?