wealth inequality

[Felya]

and who's fault is that? if you are forced to work in a no or low skilled job because you didn't bother to get an education and learn a marketable skill the problem is with you not the wage you are forced to except

Education isn't free and most jobs that are no skill jobs, do not pay enouph to get an education. Then there is the reality of taking vocational schooling like welding, which would lower the pay for existing workers because we do not have organized labour and influx of workers will create competition for those jobs.

[Endus]

I'm not restricting it to physical harm.

Both parties willingly agreed to a contract. They both say that's what they want. Now you want to step in and tell them that it's not actually what they want, and you think you know what's best for them.

You can keep repeating this, it won't make it true. Does the employee want higher pay? Better conditions/benefits? Then they didn't get what they wanted, precisely because the market isn't free and they were obliged to take an offer that failed to live up to their requirements.

You keep ignoring this point. As long as straight-up choosing not to work is off the table as a valid option, without producing hardship, the labor market is not a free market, and employees are facing a coercive environment that works against their interests. This is why we have laws protecting them from the abuses of their employers.

Because we know what the alternative is. The alternative is people working 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and still sending their 8 year olds to the factory to work every day, because even at that workload, they aren't making enough to feed their children, even while they're slowly starving, themselves.

That's literally what happened, prior to these laws being put in place. That's the "utopia" you're pushing to bring back. A heavily abusive and explicitly harmful system. You aren't "defending freedom", you're defending privilege, and attacking those few measures that have been established to protect employees from their employer's abusive and harmful action.

[Machismo]

I imagine of you asked the wealthy and the elite they would argue they are and besides that wasn't even the point. The "anarchy" you invision is really just serfdom. Without some form of violence and coercion to enforce private property that right wouldn't exist and the claims of the rich and the wealthy are meaningless. Private property only had a right when it's backed by force.

I do not envision anarchy. Anarchy has no means to deal with the outliers, which leads to a restriction in the maximum attainable amount of freedom.

I have no problem with voluntary governance. Yes, that means private citizens can work together to protect their won freedoms.

[Glorious Leader]

If they agree to it, then they got what they wanted. Sure, maybe they compromised, but the company may have done the very same thing. That's what negotiations are all about, coming to an agreement. If they think they are worth more money, then they should find a better-paying job.

The company does less and almost no compromising when labor is disciplined by conditions on the outside. This creates a power imbalance and subsequently labor instead of getting what it wants settles for wanting what it gets. The market is not free in that sense and to call it fair or free is disgusting.

[Vyxn]

The former. Which is the result those at the upper end of the scale abusing their power.



Yes. Because the issue is the distribution, not the absolute value.

Telling the kids at your birthday party that they should be happy with a stale cookie while you eat an entire birthday cake because hey, a stale cookie is better than nothing, that's a pretty dickish thing to do. But that's your argument in a nutshell. And when they complain, you say "hey, what if I give you TWO cookies, but then I have a second cake all to myself?" No, that doesn't address the issue, and just demonstrates how completely you fail to grasp what the issue actually is.

and who ever told you life was fair fed you a line of crap

If you don't like the company wage disparity then find a company more to your liking and if you don't have the marketable skill that is in demand for you to be able to shop around for a better job the problem is with you not the wage disparity

[Mayhem]

I'm in favor of them educating themselves, absolutely. The more people learn, the more marketable they are.

And no, I never said I was going to pay for their education.

You do understand that if more people are able to do what you´re doing, you would need to accept lower payment from your boss since there won´t be any other companies willing to pay you more?

Also, just out of curiousity, you never thought, wait a minute, if he´s willing to raise my wage whenever someone else offers me higher payment, why did i not get that payment in the first place?

[Glorious Leader]

I do not envision anarchy. Anarchy has no means to deal with the outliers, which leads to a restriction in the maximum attainable amount of freedom.

I have no problem with voluntary governance. Yes, that means private citizens can work together to protect their won freedoms.

Which is government only you've removed the name government.

[breadisfunny]

I'm in favor of them educating themselves, absolutely. The more people learn, the more marketable they are.

And no, I never said I was going to pay for their education.

how do they do that if they can't afford it in the first place? it becomes a catch 22 situation. can't get a higher paying position because you need a certain set of skills which you can only acquire from education which you can't afford because you don't have enough money to pay for it but you can't rise any higher because you don't have skills needed from that education....

[Endus]

and who ever told you life was fair fed you a line of crap

That's why we have government. To protect the interests of its citizens, from abusive behaviour like this. To create fairness in an unfair world.

[Machismo]

You can keep repeating this, it won't make it true. Does the employee want higher pay? Better conditions/benefits? Then they didn't get what they wanted, precisely because the market isn't free and they were obliged to take an offer that failed to live up to their requirements.

You keep ignoring this point. As long as straight-up choosing not to work is off the table as a valid option, without producing hardship, the labor market is not a free market, and employees are facing a coercive environment that works against their interests. This is why we have laws protecting them from the abuses of their employers.

Because we know what the alternative is. The alternative is people working 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and still sending their 8 year olds to the factory to work every day, because even at that workload, they aren't making enough to feed their children, even while they're slowly starving, themselves.

That's literally what happened, prior to these laws being put in place. That's the "utopia" you're pushing to bring back. A heavily abusive and explicitly harmful system. You aren't "defending freedom", you're defending privilege, and attacking those few measures that have been established to protect employees from their employer's abusive and harmful action.

Then that employee should negotiate better, or find a new job. If they agreed to a set price, then until they show otherwise, that is how much they are worth.

Just as employees "need" to work, employers "need" people to work. That's why they negotiate, and come to an agreeable contract by which the employee will work, adn the employer will compensate the employee.

[Damajin]

Normally I agree with you Machismo, but not here.

You need to get away from seeing actions taken on behalf of a corporation and its' motivations as being synonymous with individual actions and their motivations. The notion of the 'corporate citizen' really fails to ever come close to balancing out against actual living human citizens and what it has shown me is that given the perogative of corporations, IE profit over all it will always seek to dominate and diminish people, their freedoms and their potential because it can permit nothing that doesn't allow for the maximum bottom line.

In essence you have to choose: people or corporations. If you choose people then you have to jettison corporate concerns, look for smaller packages for the management and containment of the business world but ones that ultimately function in harmony with people and not against their needs and existence due to an overriding profit mandate.

You're trying to be consistent in your application of viewpoint, which I applaud you for but there's really not much that can be said except that corporations and people are naturally out of sync with each others' goals and needs and it's only by bending one to the other that any synergy actually exists. And as everyone can easily see it is always people who are bent to corporations, not the other way around. So it's a choice of people or an artificial construct of people and that's a pretty easy decision to make, once you stop being stubborn about it and see there's potential for other ways that fulfill peoples' ambitions of getting more out of life yet also doesn't act as a rubber stamp to pursue monopoly status because lets not kid ourselves here. Corporations have no other goal but monopoly.

[Machismo]

Which is government only you've removed the name government.

Like I said, I have no problem with the existence of a government. I merely have a problem with restricting victimless actions.

[Vyxn]

Education isn't free and most jobs that are no skill jobs, do not pay enouph to get an education. Then there is the reality of taking vocational schooling like welding, which would lower the pay for existing workers because we do not have organized labour and influx of workers will create competition for those jobs.

anyone that applied them selves in high school and got decent enough grades can go to college or trade school as many grants and student loans floating around out there so don't hand me that bull shit

[breadisfunny]

Actually, the people above you are stopping you, because they don´t want to share, and apparently people in this thread defend that position to the bone.

it's because people like you are trying to keep machismo from his maximum possible freedoms. such heartless meanies.

[Machismo]

how do they do that if they can't afford it in the first place? it becomes a catch 22 situation. can't get a higher paying position because you need a certain set of skills which you can only acquire from education which you can't afford because you don't have enough money to pay for it but you can't rise any higher because you don't have skills needed from that education....

Considering I started my education whilst dead broke, and have continued it for a very long time, it's absolutely doable.

[Felya]

and who ever told you life was fair fed you a line of crap

If you don't like the company wage disparity then find a company more to your liking and if you don't have the marketable skill that is in demand for you to be able to shop around for a better job the problem is with you not the wage disparity

The problem is that we do not have organized labour. Making each individual worker expendable, regardless of your skill. Once you hit your 40s, you will start losing positions to younger people who have less experience, but more upside and lower cost. Corporations are not altruistic and regardless of your skill level, you as an individual worker are expendable.

[breadisfunny]

Like I said, I have no problem with the existence of a government. I merely have a problem with restricting victimless actions.

yeah as long as it has no actual power.

[Felya]

anyone that applied them selves in high school and got decent grades can go to college or trade school as many grants and student loans floating around out there so don't hand me that bull shit

That's not true either. If everyone applied them selfs in highschool, the bar for entry into college would be higher and so would requirements for scholarships. That is a silly solution which misses the point entirely.

[Vyxn]

That's why we have government. To protect the interests of its citizens, from abusive behaviour like this. To create fairness in an unfair world.

so explain how is it fair for one to lay claim to the fruits of another's labor?

[breadisfunny]

Considering I started my education whilst dead broke, and have continued it for a very long time, it's absolutely doable.

hello anecdotal evidence. also just to humor you do go into detail about how i may duplicate this success.