By definition slavery isn't voluntary. Not that this changes your argument; servitude is banned internationally for approximately the same reasons as slavery.
> people accepting [less than minimum wage] jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available
This is yet another example of the problem of using "profit" as the primary (or only) metric for human progress.
Are the people given non-livable wages in a more profitable position than if those jobs weren't available? Does the job improve their situation in general? Is the job using using low wages Wallmart-style to offload a portion of their personnel costs on taxpayers by paying such a small amount all employees are expected to always use government services?[1]
It is of vital importance to ask a wide variety of these questions. Using a single metric is p almost always going to give you an incomplete view of the situation.
By definition slavery isn't voluntary. Not that this changes your argument; servitude is banned internationally for approximately the same reasons as slavery.
> people accepting [less than minimum wage] jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available
This is yet another example of the problem of using "profit" as the primary (or only) metric for human progress.
Are the people given non-livable wages in a more profitable position than if those jobs weren't available? Does the job improve their situation in general? Is the job using using low wages Wallmart-style to offload a portion of their personnel costs on taxpayers by paying such a small amount all employees are expected to always use government services?[1]
It is of vital importance to ask a wide variety of these questions. Using a single metric is p almost always going to give you an incomplete view of the situation.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...