wealth inequality

[GrinningMan]

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Sums up this entire website pretty well, tbqh. Bunch of Monday-afternoon quarterbacks, all of which owe people greater than them.

[Glorious Leader]

I do not ascribe to objectivism, or much else that Ayn Rand wrote about.

That was von mises praising ayn rand and his view about the masses is not that different from yours I'm afraid

[Machismo]

oh look personal attacks how cute. i am getting under your skin machismo? or could you answer the question?

Your question was inane, and made no sense.

I have no desire to force you to do anything.

[Endus]

It's directly opposed to it, yet doing the exact same thing as it. You are two sides to the very same coin.

Seriously, the Wikipedia link is right up there in that last post. Please take a few minutes to learn what the word means. Respecting that corporations and their owners have interests and rights is not "corporatism".

[Machismo]

Unions in US are nearly gone and very few industries have them. If you are working without a union, mention starting a union within an ear shot of your manager. Good luck with your superior skill...

It doesn't have to better, it has to be less pay. What you are describing is a race to the bottom, because employees compete with each other, instead of businesses competing for best employees. If the goal was the best employee and not cost involved, outsourcing wouldn't be an issue and unions would be prolific, instead of disappearing.

Then become more marketable. It really is that simple.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So, you are a corporatist, congratulations.

Democracy, where people use the power of their numbers to pass and enforce laws. Usually supports the interests of the proletariat, the masses of people who live in that society.

Corporatism, where giant businesses use their money to pay politicians to pass and enforce laws, or to dismantle regulations that kept them from exploiting workers. Usually creates an elite ruling class.

The laissez-faire economy that you're advocating doesn't work. Period.

[Glorious Leader]

Sums up this entire website pretty well, tbqh. Bunch of Monday-afternoon quarterbacks, all of which owe people greater than them.

Precisely like the above. Nietzche pointed to it when he said the slaves would come follow the values of the masters.

[Machismo]

Seriously, the Wikipedia link is right up there in that last post. Please take a few minutes to learn what the word means. Respecting that corporations and their owners have interests and rights is not "corporatism".

You are doing the exact same thing that corporatists do, using the government to push your agenda and unbalance the playing field.

- - - Updated - - -

Democracy, where people use the power of their numbers to pass and enforce laws. Usually supports the interests of the proletariat, the masses of people who live in that society.

Corporatism, where giant businesses use their money to pay politicians to pass and enforce laws, or to dismantle regulations that kept them from exploiting workers. Usually creates an elite ruling class.

The laissez-faire economy that you're advocating doesn't work. Period.

And a democracy is the surest path to oppression. As long as 51% of the population wants to screw someone over, they will get their way.

[breadisfunny]

Then become more marketable. It really is that simple.

and how does one do that?

[Endus]

You are doing the exact same thing that corporatists do, using the government to push your agenda and unbalance the playing field.

See? That's not what corporatism is. What you're arguing against is representative democracy. What minority do you think should have the capacity to oppress everyone else? That's the only alternative to democracy.

[Machismo]

and how does one do that?

Continue your education, work harder, get better at your job, continue looking for new jobs.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then become more marketable. It really is that simple.

Telling one person that is a cop-out and it addresses a single person. It does nothing for addressing the needs of everyone who cleans toilets, cooks food, takes out trash, stocks shelves, etc. Those people are going to exist because there are not enough high skill jobs to accommodate everyone making themselves more marketable. There will always be low skilled jobs that need doing. And if you REALLY want that, and everyone becomes highly skilled, then those jobs will be paid nothing.

I'm sure you believe you're in a good paying position, but in your world you would be someone being paid 25 cents an hour and only own your clothes. Unless you're a billionaire and we just don't know it you'd not be a lion in that world. All of your negotiating power and skills wouldn't matter. Wages would be at rock bottom, even for skilled labor. You'd just be another sheep.

[Glorious Leader]

Continue your education, work harder, get better at your job, continue looking for new jobs.

And if no jobs exist? Or if you've got 30 men for each single job? If automation had replaced all the jobs?

[Machismo]

See? That's not what corporatism is. What you're arguing against is representative democracy. What minority do you think should have the capacity to oppress everyone else? That's the only alternative to democracy.

I don't desire to oppress anyone, and I will oppose anyone who wishes to do so. I'm arguing against unnecessary oppression, I thought you'd figure that out.

[breadisfunny]

Continue your education, work harder, get better at your job, continue looking for new jobs.

that seems to assume that those will cause your employer to pay you more which isn't always the case. why pay a employee more when you can just make up a reason to fire him the next time he dare asks for a raise?

[Machismo]

And if no jobs exist? Or if you've got 30 men for each single job?

Then move elsewhere, or start your own business.

- - - Updated - - -

Telling one person that is a cop-out and it addresses a single person. It does nothing for addressing the needs of everyone who cleans toilets, cooks food, takes out trash, stocks shelves, etc. Those people are going to exist because there are not enough high skill jobs to accommodate everyone making themselves more marketable. There will always be low skilled jobs that need doing. And if you REALLY want that, and everyone becomes highly skilled, then those jobs will be paid nothing.

I'm sure you believe you're in a good paying position, but in your world you would be someone being paid 25 cents an hour and only own your clothes. Unless you're a billionaire and we just don't know it you'd not be a lion in that world. All of your negotiating power and skills wouldn't matter. Wages would be at rock bottom, even for skilled labor. You'd just be another sheep.

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Not everyone can be rich, just as not everyone can have the job they want. That does not mean that we should punish corporations because of it.

- - - Updated - - -

that seems to assume that those will cause your employer to pay you more which isn't always the case. why pay a employee more when you can just make up a reason to fire him the next time he dare asks for a raise?

If your employer fires you, work for a different employer, or start your own company. The more marketable you are, the less likely your employer will fire you.

[Endus]

I don't desire to oppress anyone, and I will oppose anyone who wishes to do so. I'm arguing against unnecessary oppression, I thought you'd figure that out.

No, you've said you're not an anarchist, and you've now attacking representative democracy, and all other political forms (autocracy, meritocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, corporatocracy, etc) all involve rule by some minority.

So if you're not in favor of no governance, and not in favor of governance by all (democracy), and now saying you're not supporting governance by some selected group, you've now eliminated all possible political structures, including the lack of any.

[Machismo]

No, you've said you're not an anarchist, and you've now attacking representative democracy, and all other political forms (autocracy, meritocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, corporatocracy, etc) all involve rule by some minority.

So if you're not in favor of no governance, and not in favor of governance by all (democracy), and now saying you're not supporting governance by some selected group, you've now eliminated all possible political structures, including the lack of any.

I'm in favor of voluntary governance, as well as governance where only actions which create a victim are restricted. That is not anarchy.

[Damajin]

Democracy, where people use the power of their numbers to pass and enforce laws. Usually supports the interests of the proletariat, the masses of people who live in that society.

Corporatism, where giant businesses use their money to pay politicians to pass and enforce laws, or to dismantle regulations that kept them from exploiting workers. Usually creates an elite ruling class.

The laissez-faire economy that you're advocating doesn't work. Period.

Laissez-faire would be fine in a true Republic with iron clad laws and a clear emphasis on the people of that Republic, since those said people would bear both the fruit and the failure of Laissez-faire but in this mixed economy/mixed governmental system we have now thanks to 200 years of interest based prybar tactics it will never work. That's the lesson I've had to learn over the last 10-15 years.

Laissez-faire is actually viable in a localist to nationalist based Republic system, and no where else and unless you're advocating for such a system there's literally zero point in advocating for laissez-faire because it's not going to be the shining example of stand up individualism that its adherents want it to be.

[Glorious Leader]

Then move elsewhere, or start your own business.

And If everyone follows your prescription and all the jobs are taken and everyone starts a business? The solution you're advocating MAY be acceptable for individuals but for an entire society it's cannot be applied. Furthermore you've basically just told people tk pack up and move how free can they be? I'll cite polyani quoting von mises once again



""In human terms such a postulate [of a labour market] implied for the worker extreme instability of earnings, utter absence of professional standards, abject readiness to be shoved and pushed about indiscriminately, complete dependence on the whims of the market. [Ludwig Von] Mises justly argued that if workers 'did not act as trade unionists, but reduced their demands and changed their locations and occupations according to the labour market, they would eventually find work.' This sums up the position under a system based on the postulate of the commodity character of labour. It is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed."