Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 15 at 7:34 comment added James K Yes but that's not the point. If you are threatened with death, then you are choosing anything. So irrelevant. Also, if employers are allowed to pay less, then it isn't a minimum wage, by definition. So as I say this isn't a "right which you can waive" but an obligation on employers.
Mar 15 at 5:31 comment added nanoman "No rational person would submit to cruel or unusual punishment" -- strongly disagree. For example, given that the death penalty exists (and is not yet considered cruel and unusual), it is very plausible that someone might personally prefer a sentence of a few minutes of torture if that were an allowed alternative to death (or even to a long imprisonment).
Mar 15 at 5:30 comment added nanoman "On the other hand a person would not rationally accept less money for work than is offered" -- strongly disagree. Note that the point of my waiving would not be to lower the pay that has already been offered to me, but to get an offer at all. Someone sufficiently desperate for income (in a recession, say, or with some personal disqualification making it difficult to get a job) might gladly accept employment for slightly less than minimum wage, if the alternative is no income. Employers have no obligation to give a job to anyone with a pulse.
Mar 13, 2018 at 0:17 comment added ohwilleke This has more to do with the precise wording of the law and the politics in place when the legislation was enacted, and less to do with logic than the answer suggests. There are non-waivable rights that many people might rationally waive but don't because the law says that they can't, and other rights that are waived "irrationally" because people have no other practical choice.
Mar 10, 2018 at 21:56 vote accept Ben Mordecai
Mar 10, 2018 at 21:52 history answered James K CC BY-SA 3.0