For me it&#x27;s the difference between this:<p>1st person: These people are starving. I will treat them as I would a non-starving person, say pay them $xx&#x2F;hour which I calculated is enough to build a profitable business.<p>2nd person: These people are starving. I will pay them the least I can get away with it, after all it&#x27;s not like they have many options. Sure, I could make a profit even if I paid them 10 times that, but why go there? Fuck them, they should be grateful that they get anything instead of nothing at all.<p>For me, the 2nd person is a jerk. I wouldn&#x27;t want them anywhere near my society. Scum of the earth.<p>And the whole &quot;Copehangen&quot; theory BS wants us to believe that it&#x27;s either (2) or nothing -- that paying people in need the lower you can (near substinence) is the only thing possible.<p>There are several shades between (1) and (2), but most proponents of such ideas go for the full-on (2), and then pretend they are some kind of benefactors too.