hose Who Support the Minimum Wage Must Advocate for the Prohibition of Volunteering

***Those (I think my title was too long, so the first letter was edited out)

People tend to appreciate volunteers helping out organizations or institutions. No one seems to think volunteering for a business should be illegal; yet, if that business pays them a compensation for their voluntary work, it must be over a certain amount otherwise it would be exploitation of the employee. This is a very inconsistent position that most people (Liberals, in particular) take.

This is not to get into about the details the situations of people, etc. I am talking about the principle that it is illegal for a business to pay someone a compensation of $5 an hour for voluntary work while paying $0 is legal.

 

You make an interesting point, but remember that people volunteer to be nice. People don't volunteer to put bread on the table.

 

You make an excellent point. Either volunteers must receive minimum wage or minimum wage must be abolished.

 

So MCdonalds can pay their workers $3 an hour while keeping the prices the same? You are a corporate shill.

 

What if you work for $3 to be nice, and to have a little extra money?

 

Do you work to be nice? I mean, when you go in to work, are you doing so because you want to be a nice guy?

 

Paying for volunteer work actually decreases motivation of reliable and loyal volunteers. Nature of the beast.

 

I'm a liberal and am very consistent on the issue. Volunteers are scabs.

 

So it should be illegal to volunteer since that's $0 an hour, right?

Rather irrelevant my personal experience is. Like I said in my OP, I'm not talking about the details of the situation of the people -- I'm talking about the principle that it is illegal to pay you a compensation that is too little but it is legal to have you do a favor for free. Also kind of funny that people think that if the minimum wage were removed, everyone would get paid less -- yet the average American makes well above the minimum wage.

Also, funny to think... companies need employees just as much as they need customers, yet no one claims setting prices too high is exploiting customers.

Are you saying paying people in general for labor should be illegal because the productivity of volunteers is greater than paid employees?

 

Ah, so you are consistent. Props for you. I suppose Red Cross should quickly be shut down.

 

You are disgusting. I mean that sincerely.

 

Depends on what they are volunteering for. But yes most people who work knowingly underpaid are scabs.

 

Yep. I ain't volunteering my blood while doctors get rich off it. It's called 'capitalism'.

 

Excellent point!

 

Just think of the irony when you die because there is not enough donated blood.

 

First of all, we have pretty similar opinions anyway since we are both libertarians. First of all, I agree with you that there should be no minimum wage, at least nationally. I'd prefer minimum wages set by states, or, better yet, set by counties or cities. The cost of living differs from region to region and county to county.

Anyway, when you say that people shouldn't have required minimum compensation, it does exploit the lower class to an extent. For this reason I do believe there should be a minimum wage. When people work, they work to make money. It has to benefit themselves in some way, and for all jobs the biggest part of that is to make money (when would it not?). Volunteering is doing something out of the goodness of your heart or to be nice. You go in knowing you're not going to make a penny off of it.

 

My god, seriously. Do you liberals have even an ounce of decency? Do you know WHY PEOPLE GIVE BLOOD? To SAVE LIVES! Not to cut some doctor's paycheck you moronic scum.

 

The difference between the two is motive. People choose to volunteer as a form of physical charity, if you will. They aren't expecting compensation. On the other hand, people need to seek employment, so they can afford to survive (food, rent, property tax, power, etc.). They are expecting a livable wage.

This is a case of someone demanding consistency, when there isn't a comparison.

 

I think the difference is that people volunteer not for monetary gain, but for the betterment of society. I understand that the libertarian stance is all about consistency. However, when you go for a volunteer job, you are usually aware beforehand that you may not be paid the minimum wage. It is assumed that you are devoting your services not for monetary gain, but to make a lasting difference.

 

I'm going to die because there is a lack of donated medical care long before I die of a lack of donated blood.

 

Well, if you're going down that route, then I would say abolishing the minimum wage would help since it would increase employment. Working for a small amount of money is better than not earning any money, yes? I also wouldn't say voluntary acts between consenting adults are never exploitations, but that's kind of a digression...

 

Hey, poofter-boy, donate your own blood. Why in god's holy britches should I donate blood that the hospitals are going to turn around and sell for $400/half-litre?

 

To save lives.
I thought liberals wanted ObamaCare to save lives. If they truly wanted to save lives they would donate blood to help save lives even if it makes some people rich.

 

Sure there is a comparison. I'm talking about the principle -- if there's a rather large favor my friend wants me to do, and I don't really want to do it, then he says "oh, come on... I'll give you $20," that's illegal if it takes over a certain number of hours. On the other hand, if I do it for no money, it is perfectly legal.

This is why I specifically stated in my OP that I am not talking about the situation of the employee/volunteer -- I am talking about the principle that you can let someone work for you for $0 an hour but cannot for $3 an hour. This is a very inconsistent position. Can we really say that no one has ever worked for money they don't really need?

 

Hey, I'm a capitalist, what can I say?