> A survey of workers on Mechanical Turk done by Panos Ipeirotis, an Associate Professor at the Stern School of Business at NYU, found that the majority of American workers are young, have at least some college experience, and have household incomes between $25,000 and $60,000.
It sounds like the majority of workers are supplementing their incomes, not relying on it.
Only a small percentage of workers are using MTurk as a primary source of income, so I wouldn't agree with the assertion that "things must be pretty bad".
> The rest make under $20 a week by working an hour or two per day. The most commonly cited reasons for using Mechanical Turk are to earn some extra spending money and productively use time that would otherwise be wasted watching television. One academic study that relied on Mechanical Turk workers filling out questionnaires noted that its American participants were “normally distributed in terms of socioeconomic status, with the average participant having completed some college and receiving a financial income between $37,500–49,999 per year.” This does not match up with the perception of exploited sweatshop labor - the poor who must accept low wages due to a lack of alternatives.
I guess it ought to be illegal for people to choose to make productive use of their time.
Next time, please read the article before parroting your ideological commitments.
The bigger point you need to understand is that if minimum wage was enforced at MTurk, it would significantly raise the prices, and many requesters would simply stop using the service. This would result in less work for everyone.
Given a choice between fewer jobs in which employees are actually able to support themselves and more where they can't, the former seems the more humane option...
I don't have a good answer for that, except to expect that wages wherever the jobs are outsourced to are at a livable standard for that area. Competition and outsourcing are probably inevitable in a global marketplace, but everyone should at least have access to food, clean water, education and decent healthcare.
Of course i'm coming entirely from a labor point of view, and i'll grant my grasp of economics is probably naive to say the least.
If the end goal was not profit, this would not be a problem.
If the end goal was to produce some goods or services that are of benefit to people, while looking after employees, the environment and the local community, the world would be a much better place.
Of course, the stock market might not grow so fast, but that's just made up anyway. People struggling to buy food on paltry wages is not made up.
I find the past 200,000 years of "management" unacceptable and largely void of progress. Only once sufficient incentive was established in what we now know as a capitalistic global market did we see humans as a species begin to solve existential problems at a race previously reserved for science fiction and fantasy.
>The fact they are choosing to do it shows they have no viable alternative
Assertion based on facts not found in evidence. Just because they take remote jobs that can be done at their whim whenever they want doesn't mean they can't find a viable alternative. In fact, there aren't many jobs where those qualifications are met.
The fact they are choosing to do it shows they have no viable alternative, which means things must be pretty bad where they are living