wealth inequality

[Machismo]

See, you keep resorting to this completely indefensible twisting of the truth, to use biased rhetoric in place of argument.

No, mandating equitable treatment is not "punishing" employers. If they had been behaving well in the first place, it wouldn't affect them, because they'd already have been treating their employees properly. Redressing the harm they've already done is not "punishing" them.

It's only equitable in your eyes, that's the whole point. For some people, it was equitable to keep slaves, and they used the government to justify their oppression. You seem to think that an employer owes an employee anything that is not in their written contract. They don't owe them a fucking thing outside of what was agreed upon. If I agree to work for an employer, and the agreement is that I do not need to work on Saturdays... then I'm not going to work on Saturdays.

They are treating their employers properly. what they aren't doing, is giving them everything you want them to have. That's a big fucking difference. If they are keeping good on their contract, then you are merely whining about wanting to oppress them, all because you don't like them. If you can show they are not keeping their word, then go after them.

[breadisfunny]

wealth inequity is irrelevant hollow propaganda that its only purpose is to cause envy and class warfare

proven by you answering this simple question honestly

what is better? one on the lower end of the income scale making 30k a year and one at the upper end of the economic scale making 600k a year or one on the lower economic scale making 20k a year and one on the upper economic scale making 500k a year?


according to your wealth inequality propaganda rhetoric it is better for the ones on the low end of the economic scale to make 20k a year and ones on the upper economic scale to make 500k a year because the gap is smaller less inequality

oh great here comes vyxn to tell us how this is all a vast government conspiracy to institute some new world order.

[Machismo]

i find it amusing you keep going on about punishing corporations and then go around and get all upset when the poor want equal footing or even a living wage.

That is punishing a corporation. If you want a living wage, go earn it. Go up to your employer, and tell them you want a raise. Running to the government to solve your problems is the same as sticking a gun in their face, and telling them to pay you more... or else...

- - - Updated - - -

wow hyperbole much. gee i don't see any death squads marching to exterminate the companies that don't comply. oh let me guess LAWS ARE BARBARISM. WRONG. laws are what civilizations are based on unless your idea of living is to sit in a cabin in the middle of the woods.

At the end of the day, that's what the government is... a guy with a gun. When you pass a law, you are required to comply. If you refuse to comply, eventually, a man with a gun is going to threaten your life.

[Endus]

That is punishing a corporation. If you want a living wage, go earn it. Go up to your employer, and tell them you want a raise. Running to the government to solve your problems is the same as sticking a gun in their face, and telling them to pay you more... or else...

In the same way that it's unfair to expect the government to find your wife's murderer, you should track them down and enact justice for yourself. Don't ask the government to punish murderers, that's unfair.

That's your argument. It's ridiculous.

[Glorious Leader]

But the company did not put that person under duress, so why punish them? You want top punish entities which have caused no harm.

That's like blaming shoppers who show up to a "going out of business sale."

The quality of choice is important and that's what needs to be stressed here. When inequality is less (both income and wealth ) the quality of choice is much better as labor is less "disciplined". Men and woman can and will tell their bosses to fuck off in other words. Greenspan said it best some time ago. The wonderful thing about debt is that it's cured the labor problem. People are not likely to tell bosses to fuck off when they live pay to pay. It's hardly "free" and to call it that is a sick joke.

[Machismo]

In the same way that it's unfair to expect the government to find your wife's murderer, you should track them down and enact justice for yourself. Don't ask the government to punish murderers, that's unfair.

That's your argument. It's ridiculous.

One is a case of actual harm, the other is not. Where's the harm in a voluntary contract between two willing participants? If you cannot show actual harm, which you have admitted that there is none committed by the business, then forcing an undue burden on them is the very definition of oppression.

[Endus]

At the end of the day, that's what the government is... a guy with a gun. When you pass a law, you are required to comply. If you refuse to comply, eventually, a man with a gun is going to threaten your life.

In the same way that the only thing preventing you from killing the CEO and taking all his stuff for yourself is that same "guy with a gun".

Funny how the same complaint is magically not applied in that case.

- - - Updated - - -

One is a case of actual harm, the other is not.

False. You refusing to acknowledge the harm of inequitable employment practices is not an argument.

Where's the harm in a voluntary contract between two willing participants? If you cannot show actual harm, which you have admitted that there is none committed by the business, then forcing an undue burden on them is the very definition of oppression.

Again, the labor market isn't a free market. Hardship is a coercive force. As long as that exists, you can't in good conscience call entry-level work "voluntary".

[Machismo]

The quality of choice is important and that's what needs to be stressed here. When inequality is less (both income and wealth ) the quality of choice is much better as labor is less "disciplined". Men and woman can and will tell their bosses to fuck off in other words. Greenspan said it best some time ago. The wonderful thing about debt is that it's cured the labor problem. People are not likely to tell bosses to fuck off when they live pay to pay. It's hardly "free" and to call it that is a sick joke.

Don't blame a business for labor being less disciplined, that's not the business' fault. That's like blaming me because I made money from the Great Recession, by buying foreclosed property. I did not force someone to make a decision.

[breadisfunny]

That is punishing a corporation. If you want a living wage, go earn it. Go up to your employer, and tell them you want a raise. Running to the government to solve your problems is the same as sticking a gun in their face, and telling them to pay you more... or else...

- - - Updated - - -



At the end of the day, that's what the government is... a guy with a gun. When you pass a law, you are required to comply. If you refuse to comply, eventually, a man with a gun is going to threaten your life.

......how is the government the guy with a gun. no one is holding a gun to their faces telling them to pay up. they either comply with the law or the get fined or they don't operate a business. nobody sends out swat or anything unless your talking about a manhunt. oh.....let me guess you going to equate enforcing laws to being some sort of a witchhunt of the wealthy...the government is a representation of the people that you so claim to want to have freedom.

[Vyxn]

oh great here comes vyxn to tell us how this is all a vast government conspiracy to institute some new world order.

and you got all that from my post how? I noticed you didn't bother to answer my simple question

[Narwal]

It used to be that only the wealthy had indoor toilets, too. That doesn't make an indoor bathroom a "luxury", in this day and age.

One doesn't need a car when there is public transportation.
One doesn't need a toilet when there are public bathrooms.
One doesn't need a computer and the internet at home when there is a library near by that offers it for free.

Are there advantages to owning your own of these things? Yes. Is there a workaround to not having them? In urban places, for sure. In rural areas it's a bit harder, but most of the people complaining probably aren't in rural areas.

My argument here does not detract from the fact that workers deserve a fair wage for their work. However, I flat out repute the fact that all of these things we buy are "necessary" for survival. And thus, trying to compare peoples issues today (fat and jobless with government assistance) to periods of real issue (starving and jobless with little assistance) is a huge over-exaggeration. Of course, if we listen to Obama and Hillary, things are going great in our economy, so why do we have this discussion?

[Mayhem]

That is punishing a corporation. If you want a living wage, go earn it. Go up to your employer, and tell them you want a raise. Running to the government to solve your problems is the same as sticking a gun in their face, and telling them to pay you more... or else...

My company is contaminating the ground water, better not get the government involved, no i rather tell them myself that i want them to stop, because we are totally equal negotiating partners.

Say, what´s your job that you can´t be replaced?

[Machismo]

In the same way that the only thing preventing you from killing the CEO and taking all his stuff for yourself is that same "guy with a gun".

Funny how the same complaint is magically not applied in that case.

- - - Updated - - -



False. You refusing to acknowledge the harm of inequitable employment practices is not an argument.



Again, the labor market isn't a free market. Hardship is a coercive force. As long as that exists, you can't in good conscience call entry-level work "voluntary".

What harm is caused by a business hiring someone for an agreed-upon wage?

Duress is coercive, but the company is not the one doing it, are they? Nope. They are simply taking advantage of it, which is exactly what I'd expect the employee to do in a "seller's market." That's what I do, and it's why I've gotten 9 raises in 6 years.

[Endus]

What harm is caused by a business hiring someone for an agreed-upon wage?

The negotiation isn't between free actors. You keep acting as if it were, and it's false.

Duress is coercive, but the company is not the one doing it, are they? Nope. They are simply taking advantage of it, which is exactly what I'd expect the employee to do in a "seller's market." That's what I do, and it's why I've gotten 9 raises in 6 years.

Which means it's not free market action. That the company isn't creating it simply means they can't be literally charged with an actual crime, but get to skate by on a technicality. It doesn't make the behaviour ethical.

[Machismo]

......how is the government the guy with a gun. no one is holding a gun to their faces telling them to pay up. they either comply with the law or the get fined or they don't operate a business. nobody sends out swat or anything unless your talking about a manhunt. oh.....let me guess you going to equate enforcing laws to being some sort of a witchhunt of the wealthy...the government is a representation of the people that you so claim to want to have freedom.

You just described the scenario. They either pay up, or get fined. What happens if they refuse to comply with the fine? The government will try to shut down their business. What happens if they still refuse to comply? Eventually, a guy with a gun is going to point it at them, and force them to do what the government wants.

That is not freedom. Using the government to force your beliefs onto others is not freedom, particularly when you are trying to restrict a victimless action.

[breadisfunny]

Don't blame a business for labor being less disciplined, that's not the business' fault. That's like blaming me because I made money from the Great Recession, by buying foreclosed property. I did not force someone to make a decision.

yep and those businesses that wanted to build a business over existing landowners property were not at fault for using eminent domain to get them because some wouldn't sell them. they didn't force those landowners to do anything it was the government. i can play the six degrees of separation game too machismo.

[Endus]

You just described the scenario. They either pay up, or get fined. What happens if they refuse to comply with the fine? The government will try to shut down their business. What happens if they still refuse to comply? Eventually, a guy with a gun is going to point it at them, and force them to do what the government wants.

That is not freedom. Using the government to force your beliefs onto others is not freedom, particularly when you are trying to restrict a victimless action.

Yes; the existence of laws means that nobody is free, even if those laws exist to protect freedoms. This was sarcasm.

Your argument is completely ridiculous. Anarchy is not a system that promotes freedom. It simply allows for abusers to have free reign to force you to obey them.

[Machismo]

My company is contaminate the ground water, better not get the government involved, no i rather tell them myself that i want them to stop, because we are totally equal negotiating partners.

Say, what´s your job that you can´t be replaced?

I can be replaced, it's just difficult to do it. My current role is a software developer and an actuary. I also speak multiple languages, which helps with our international clients.

- - - Updated - - -

The negotiation isn't between free actors. You keep acting as if it were, and it's false.



Which means it's not free market action. That the company isn't creating it simply means they can't be literally charged with an actual crime, but get to skate by on a technicality. It doesn't make the behaviour ethical.

You want to punish a company, even though they've done nothing wrong. They simply chose negotiate more efficiently. Stop blaming the business for people being lazy and complacent.

[Glorious Leader]

Yes; the existence of laws means that nobody is free, even if those laws exist to protect freedoms. This was sarcasm.

Your argument is completely ridiculous. Anarchy is not a system that promotes freedom. It simply allows for abusers to have free reign to force you to obey them.

As these clowns invision anarchy this is correct. As anarchy in vision ed as a system that opposes hierarchy (all forms including private poroperty) this is untrue.

[Machismo]

yep and those businesses that wanted to build a business over existing landowners property were not at fault for using eminent domain to get them because some wouldn't sell them. they didn't force those landowners to do anything it was the government. i can play the six degrees of separation game too machismo.

I do not support eminent domain, because once again, that is someone trying to use the government to screw over others. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing.