Because it strains valued interpersonal relationships, which presumably do not exist between an employer and an employee.
That depends on were on the spectrum of parasitism/symbiotism the whole thing falls - for example, your relative-benefactor enjoys your company immensely and you run their errands and take care of their chores vs. you annoy everyone around you with your misery, and your daily activity revolves around getting fucked up and wallowing your own stench.
Also, people who are fired from employment are much better situated to recover than people kicked out of a relative's house.
That's a valid point, but just another factor in risk vs reward equation.
Originally Posted by Halla74
Entire economies going to shit is a rare event
It happened in 2008... and it's still happening. So not really that rare for the times we're currently living in. And like I said, it can be a symbiotic relationship - unless you think housewives are gold diggers too.
Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.
Because the marginal value of the first dollar is very high, and your ability to earn money has no bearing on that rate (ie: you will take the highest wage job you can but you almost certainly will take a job because of the value of 0->x money is very high).
Employers who hire loafing friends and/or relatives will eventually be put out of business by their competitors, who will likely have hired qualified former staff of the failing nepotistic enterprise.
That's a simplicistic view of the matter, true for smaller companies, incorrect (imho) for corporations. Moreoever, our lives do not last indefinitely thus we don't normally wish to wait until those companies go out of business.
Anyway, @OP: you do need a minimum amount of money in order to survive. Some countries provide a minimum handout you can indefinitely live off, but you cannot afford anything beyond very basic goods (and by this I mean you normally don't even have money for more expensive groceries).
Beyond monetary rewards, there's an amount of fulfillment in doing a job well done. However, you may argue that minimum wage jobs are normally repetitive and thus this dimension would be missing - hard to find a meaningful counter-argument. You may decide to run your own small shop or be self-employed then, you'll likely earn very little money but at least you won't be at the mercy of an employer.
How would you know that you're going to remain poor? That working for X amount of time, or, an opportunity to progress in your work/field, won't dig you out of poverty?
It's as if you're think of being poor as a static thing, never changing. That's quite defeatist.
It's defeatist, but statistically not inaccurate. At least in the US.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~ John Rogers