If it was that unpleasant with lousy pay the job wouldn’t be that competitive: they’d be doing something else.
That argument is only valid during times of full employment, of which this isn’t one. There are people for whom the alternative to an unpleasant job with lousy pay would be having no way to earn a living at all. (Just making a general point; I’m not claiming this is likely to be the case for a male porn actor in particular.)
Really? Cause it seems like it’d be more valid to me. You could take a part time or second full time job, take a hobby that produces goods (gardening, carpentry, etc.), and if you have full employment this implies you do not need secondary non full employment to survive.
EDIT: Oh, I’ve been there. I would have wished I could get a job in porn too. Or at McDonalds. Or anywhere. Again, if you take the job, you at least perceive it is an improvement over not taking the job. Right? Or am I crazy?
By “full employment” I mean ‘negligible unemployment rate’ (on a society level), not ‘working as many hours as you possibly could’ (on an individual level).
I don’t get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it’s silly.
The up votes are actually harder to explain. It’s possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.
Ah. I thought you were implying something more like “40ish hours a week” of work.
I don’t know how that changes my point. You like the job enough to keep working, therefore it is an improvement of your life. Conceivably, a solution could be better social welfare or better regulation of the industry, but if the job didn’t exist, (as I assume would be the ideal state for an anti porn feminist) that takes away something that was improving their life.
I happen to live somewhere where wages are terrible, there isn’t much of a safety net outside your own family. Some jobs, like TA, really pay poorly enough where it might be a good idea to go try and farm in your own backyard. Should the minimum wage be raised? Maybe. But for those working the job, it’s enough to improve their lives, so taking away the job would be a Bad Thing(TM).
You could always head out into the woods and farm. Or beg. Or steal. Or kill yourself. I didn’t say you liked the job. I said you like the job enough. If the job didn’t exist, you’d be worse off.
Everyone agrees on that fact. But the relevant question, when I’m deciding whether it would be good on net to regulate an industry, is whether the jobs in a state of economic nature (bargained down in terms of wages and working conditions to just better than the marginal employee’s best alternative) are worse for the general welfare than the regulated jobs (and the associated economic tradeoffs) would be.
Sometimes regulation is clearly a win for society (like the workplace safety regulations in the US following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and other disasters), sometimes it’s clearly a net loss (the Greek pension system is one of the things bankrupting the country), and sometimes it’s hard to tell. But there’s an actual tradeoff in consequences, and the optimal amount of regulation is not zero in all cases.
I didn’t argue that the amount of regulation was zero in all cases. I don’t think may people really believe that, and the argument amounts to a straw man. Only that if a job market didn’t exist, the people working in that job market would be worse off.
That argument is only valid during times of full employment, of which this isn’t one. There are people for whom the alternative to an unpleasant job with lousy pay would be having no way to earn a living at all. (Just making a general point; I’m not claiming this is likely to be the case for a male porn actor in particular.)
Really? Cause it seems like it’d be more valid to me. You could take a part time or second full time job, take a hobby that produces goods (gardening, carpentry, etc.), and if you have full employment this implies you do not need secondary non full employment to survive.
EDIT: Oh, I’ve been there. I would have wished I could get a job in porn too. Or at McDonalds. Or anywhere. Again, if you take the job, you at least perceive it is an improvement over not taking the job. Right? Or am I crazy?
By “full employment” I mean ‘negligible unemployment rate’ (on a society level), not ‘working as many hours as you possibly could’ (on an individual level).
Why was this downvoted? AFAIK this usage is more-or-less standard.
I don’t get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it’s silly.
The up votes are actually harder to explain. It’s possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.
Ah. I thought you were implying something more like “40ish hours a week” of work.
I don’t know how that changes my point. You like the job enough to keep working, therefore it is an improvement of your life. Conceivably, a solution could be better social welfare or better regulation of the industry, but if the job didn’t exist, (as I assume would be the ideal state for an anti porn feminist) that takes away something that was improving their life.
I happen to live somewhere where wages are terrible, there isn’t much of a safety net outside your own family. Some jobs, like TA, really pay poorly enough where it might be a good idea to go try and farm in your own backyard. Should the minimum wage be raised? Maybe. But for those working the job, it’s enough to improve their lives, so taking away the job would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Or, you keep working because it’s the only way to survive you’ve found, even if you hate it. Not everyone has a wealthy family or something.
You could always head out into the woods and farm. Or beg. Or steal. Or kill yourself. I didn’t say you liked the job. I said you like the job enough. If the job didn’t exist, you’d be worse off.
Everyone agrees on that fact. But the relevant question, when I’m deciding whether it would be good on net to regulate an industry, is whether the jobs in a state of economic nature (bargained down in terms of wages and working conditions to just better than the marginal employee’s best alternative) are worse for the general welfare than the regulated jobs (and the associated economic tradeoffs) would be.
Sometimes regulation is clearly a win for society (like the workplace safety regulations in the US following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and other disasters), sometimes it’s clearly a net loss (the Greek pension system is one of the things bankrupting the country), and sometimes it’s hard to tell. But there’s an actual tradeoff in consequences, and the optimal amount of regulation is not zero in all cases.
Related: The Non-Libertarian FAQ, or Why I Hate Your Freedom
I didn’t argue that the amount of regulation was zero in all cases. I don’t think may people really believe that, and the argument amounts to a straw man. Only that if a job market didn’t exist, the people working in that job market would be worse off.