Hey guys if i had a spare house on my farm and let somone move

>>18481258
I am providing all the chicken and eggs they want, goat meat when harvested, and whatever veggies are in and from the fruit trees. He works uber and his wife has a job but will help him as well when she can.

>>18481258
In the old days we called this the relationship between a peasant and a lord, it's not slavery, it's the way of the future.

>>18481277
They honestly could not afford better. They get a 'free' place to stay and food. They might be able to put away something for savings. They could not do this working uber and her grocery job paying rent at a apartment. The work is mostly just daily routine stuff they can scedual around.

>>18481292
Although if i can do this the temptation to put another few trailers on my property for a few more famlies like this may be something i would consider.

>>18481258
You're a dope for not having a lawyer that you can ask about this and to review your housing/employment contracts.

You're even more of a dope if you don't have a contract at all.

>>18481258
>Is this tecnically slavery?
Yes, it's slavery.

Employers had this genius idea before where they decided the valuation of food and shelter to be so high it would be equivalent to actual pay. But it's still slavery.

Add in the minimum wage on top of that and both of you pay taxes, then you're in the clear. Otherwise nope.

>>18481292
Doesn't matter. The point of anti exploitation laws also is that you do not allow employers to create a 'race to the bottom', which is all too easy.

Yes, there is easy business in making desperate people work for nothing but shelter and food, but it's not allowed in most countries since it creates perpetual exploitation.

None of these people will be able to even cover their own health costs or ever get out of poverty that way - nor will most of their children etc. And it will force others to compete in this race to the bottom, regardless how much profits the respective companies end up making they'll hire cheap labour from a pool of desperately poor (that never escape it) all along. It's an immoral thing and not allowed.

>>18481405
>Yes, it's slavery.

Except it's not because OP's employees are free to leave when they wish.

In the USA, the fair value of housing and/or food provided to an employee can be used in lieu of money to offset the employer's minimum wage obligation. Doing this has a specific reporting requirement at the federal level, and almost always at the state level as well.

>>18481436
> Except it's not because OP's employees are free to leave when they wish.
Almost every modern slave theoretically has the possibility to leave. Be it an exploitative factory or an exploitative farm, they generally don't stop you from leaving.

It still is slavery since the slaves end up with nothing or nearly nothing for contributing their work. Employers couldn't pay less without running literal death camps which tends to be inefficient even if you do slavery (it's really easier to feed slaves than to train new ones all the time).

> In the USA, the fair value of housing and/or food provided to an employee can be used in lieu of money to offset the employer's minimum wage obligation.
As far as I'm concerned you still need to earn money beyond this to pay for other things, such as medical expenses and taxes and recreation or funds for the future, or it's slavery.

I'd think it's superficially the same in the USA, but I guess I don't know.

>>18481258
>Is this tecnically slavery?
Slavery is FORCED labor. And since you are providing a home in exchange it is technically not free labor anyway. Why do you care so much about the law. fuck the government they don't give a shit about you. As long as everyone is happy and the arrangement works the gov doesn't need to be involved, fuck them!

File: 1484549873074.png (138KB, 354x504px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 354x504px

>>18481429
>making desperate people work for nothing but shelter and food
Don't we all work for shelter and food? Can't eat shekels now can you schlomo?

File: jewpost.jpg (40KB, 491x491px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 491x491px

>>18481479
>Employers couldn't pay less without running literal death camps which tends to be inefficient even if you do slavery (it's really easier to feed slaves than to train new ones all the time).
I find it disturbing that you know so much about this..

>>18481429
It's not exploitation you fucking nerd. They aren't being forced to live on this farm and work. You could grasp at straws and say well they don't have a choice and their circumstances are forcing them into that choice but please unless you're in North Korea or some other extreme you have a choice.

>>18481511
If only right? No without a government of some sort we'd have complete chaos. If humans could be good and follow rules 100% maybe it would work. But since we like to do our own thing...

You could always pay him money and charge him rent

>>18481554
Human history is disturbing.

>>18481557
It is exploitation unless they're earning significantly MORE than just their current living expenses plus coverage of additional risks (like health risks). Plain and simple.

And yes, unless you actually regulate it like that as a government, basically all other choices for most people will be the same. We've seen this in history all along.

>>18481585
Eh more paper work.

>>18481258

you really should give them SOME money, even if its just 100 a month. what you are creating is a system they cannot escape from. they become reliant on you because they need you for food and shelter. and there's no chance for them to break free becuase you do not pay them enough to save.

you give them no option but to work for you their entire life really.

>>18482434
Wow, you really got him.

>>18482416
But they both work elsewhere for cash and my workload allows for it