No.
The potential for exploitation is too high, absolutely not
Oh HA I didn’t read properly and you answered the question already. Agreed!
WTF Quora
Hell no. Allowing that is just supporting the ass-backwards notion that intellectually disabled people are less deserved of rights-- rights that are inalienable.
I can’t help but feel that the Nazis asked a similar question, only they were deciding whether they should go to a death camp.
If you find yourself discussing something similar to what the Nazis discussed, maybe take a step back and reconsider your worldview.
I don’t get these people sometimes. :/
Your comment reminds me of the scene in Seinfeld’s “The Limo” episode where George is talking about how attractive the neo-Nazi who thinks he’s the Aryan leader is. And Jerry has to remind him…
"she’s a NAZI George… A NAZI!"
Minimum should be the absolute minimum, going lower defeats the purpose of having a minimum in the first place
Abolish capitalism.
Yes!
no, but it’s difficult for them to access high wage jobs so…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I spent some time yesterday trying to verify this claim and can’t find anything. I asked a friend of mine who is a historian if she could verify this claim and she was not able to. She pointed me to a paper called “Agrarian Collectives during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War” by Michael Seidman but it too did not have any information about people in anarchist Spain making 50% less income than people without.
Do you have a source or direction you can point me to for this claim?
deleted by creator
My view in the current state of the world is that you should get your salary from your maximum performance (healthy one).
Imagine that it takes 4 hours to you to draw an illustration in each journey, in the sense you can draw 2 each day as maximum.
Other person, meanwhile, can only make 1 in the whole journey as maximum because they are slower.
In conclusion, both you and them would get the same salary as you are both working at your maximum performance.
People who are not able to work, should be maintained directly by the state as result of contributions from people working.
I once worked for a guy with Downs syndrome, who also had a part-time job. He came from a working-class family, and clearly felt proud of the fact that he worked.
I don’t know if he received minimum wage, but if it’s not worth a company’s time to pay the standard rate, then one way to make up the difference is government subsidisation.
On the other hand, you’re subtracting a job which someone else might need, and they (unlike someone with a disability that gives fully-paid benefits) are expected to work. So while a country has a system which requires some people to work to live, this causes problems.
I don’t think many countries have the kind of sensible laws and procedure to do this safely, but ideally, people who have the ability to contribute should get some avenue, and they should get paid whatever the job is worth to them.
A good percentage of waitpersons in the country are working below minimim wage so there is precedent for this type of carve-out to labor laws. Prisons are chock full of exploited workers with no labor rights. If the intellectually challenged are to be treated equally then they should have every right to be grossly exploited like the rest of them.
Is this a joke?
What kind of nonsense crab in the bucket mindset is this? Good lord…
If you are okay with waitstaff and prisoners being underpaid then you will be okay with others suffering the same fate.
What the hell are you talking about? I’m in favor of everyone getting access to livable wages, do you not understand that? And why on earth would you think being grossly exploited is a “right”? I urge you to look into what rights are because my god, you’re so embarrassingly lost and worse, so confidently wrong.
So, you refuse to enter restaurants that do not pay their staff a living wage? If you do go to restaurants, then you believe that less than minimum wage is acceptable “in some cases” and are being hypocritical. If you accept goods and services created with prison labor then you accept wage exception and are being hypocritical. As a society, if we accept one exception, then we accept all exceptions. https://blog.globaltel.com/companies-use-prison-labor/
Capitalism is to abolish, all these thing you Listed are just some of the symptoms
So, you refuse to enter restaurants that do not pay their staff a living wage
Yes, I do. I haven’t been to a restaurant in years and if I’m in a pool of people buying something like pizza, I tip 25% cash even though I’m broke as fuck. I intentionally avoiding buying non-essential consumables specifically because I don’t want to use what little money I have to support exploitation. It’s a huge reason why I strongly believe in buying products that will last as long as possible-- to avoid having to re-buy and re-support capitalism.
What about my comments lead you to believe I accept goods and services created with prison labor? What you’re saying makes zero sense-- you just keep putting words in my mouth and then being like "BUWHADDABOUT THAT HUH?! HUH?!"
Seeing that I’ve answered your question, why haven’t you been able to answer my question? Why do you think being grossly exploited is a "right"? Use your brain-- playing devil’s advocate and being a contrarian is only useful if you raise valid points, not if you misunderstand basic definitions like what a right is and isn’t.
If you go to McDonalds or Starbucks, you are using goods created with prison labor.
Not doing something because you are dead as broke is not a principle. One person leaving a large tip is still playing into a system designed to exploit workers, mostly women.
If you leave the door open to allow one group to be disadvantaged, you leave it open for all.
Why can’t you answer my very simple question? I was courteous enough to answer yours, so why are you unable to reciprocate?
I am not okay with those things obviously.
Precedent isn’t a good justification for policy. Especially in the USA, which is an outlier in most of these issues.
