wealth inequality

[Machismo]

Not making anything up.

You're perfectly fine with the little guy getting filled out like an application by the giant throbbing dick of the wealthy, until you know, some how some way, thanks to magic and fairies, the playing field is leveled a little bit better.

You're a sycophant of the wealthy.

I'm fine with two entities working on a voluntary agreement without government interference. That does not mean I support the wealthy, it means I support everyone. You are the one justifying corporatism, by choosing to do the same thing they do.

If you can show anywhere where I want to "fuck the little guy" then please feel free to show it. You seem to have a strong disdain for freedom.

[Bodakane]

I'm fine with two entities working on a voluntary agreement without government interference. That does not mean I support the wealthy, it means I support everyone. You are the one justifying corporatism, by choosing to do the same thing they do.

If you can show anywhere where I want to "fuck the little guy" then please feel free to show it. You seem to have a strong disdain for freedom.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....you're fucking unbelievable.

What leverage does the little guy have to negotiate? I mean come the fuck on man.

You act like businesses haven't needed the government to step in on FUCKING EVERYTHING from child labor to killing workers to polluting the planet to sexual harassment. My god, what have businesses ever done to make you think they give two fucks, 4 shits or 7 damns about anything other than the bottom line? Was it the Pinkertons? Slavery? Cigarettes?

[Deleted]

Now somebody out there is probably thinking "oh but incomes are down, so we're less wealthy" which is just flat out wrong. Wealth is NOT income. Wealth is literally defined as material goods you possess. Today's American poor have access to things that would make kings of yesterday jealous. And somehow we're supposed to believe that we're now more poor than ever???

This is a very good point. Wealth just changes form. If you spend money to buy a house, your total wealth remains the same (assuming your house retains its value and won't burn or get otherwise destroyed).

[zenkai]

A minimum wage is unnecessary. It's not based on basic economic principles, but is a means by wish to unbalance the playing field. It is an artificial intervention that is not needed.

It is still above the historical average, which means it's keeping up with inflation. It's simply not as high as it's ever been, which is perfectly fine.

Minimum wage if it kept up with inflation would be something like 10.50 an hour I think but hell I always got different numbers from different sources

[Machismo]

Minimum wage if it kept up with inflation would be something like 10.50 an hour I think but hell I always got different numbers from different sources

That's only if you go by the highest it has ever been, which was 1968. We are still above the historical average, based on inflation.

[zenkai]

That's only if you go by the highest it has ever been, which was 1968. We are still above the historical average, based on inflation.

Well it looks like you're right http://money.cnn.com/interactive/eco...ge-since-1938/

[Endus]

I'm saying that when people do it, they are no different than when businesses do it. Since I do not support when a business does it, I'm not going to support when you do it. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing. By continuing to bring a gun to the negotiating table, you have no cause to complain when businesses do the same thing.

And the reason you're not just wrongheaded here but being deliberately dishonest is that, in a representative system, the government is on both sides of that table, as a third party, to ensure fair conduct.

If you only see them intervening to protect one side, it's because that side is the only one being treated unfairly.

But then, you're literally trying to argue that millionaire CEOs are the oppressed class in modern society, so I really don't see how you think anyone could take your claims seriously.

There is no way you can seriously be claiming that government is only on one side of the table, here. Not in a society where one of the chief complaints is that corporate money gets far too much influence at the political level.

[Machismo]

And the reason you're not just wrongheaded here but being deliberately dishonest is that, in a representative system, the government is on both sides of that table, as a third party, to ensure fair conduct.

If you only see them intervening to protect one side, it's because that side is the only one being treated unfairly.

But then, you're literally trying to argue that millionaire CEOs are the oppressed class in modern society, so I really don't see how you think anyone could take your claims seriously.

There is no way you can seriously be claiming that government is only on one side of the table, here. Not in a society where one of the chief complaints is that corporate money gets far too much influence at the political level.

Then by wanting the government on both sides, you are justifying the corporatism that results from it. I don't want it on either side.

I never said it was just on one side, my argument the entire time was that when they are both doing it, they are acting in the same manner. That's why I compared you to the corporatists, since you are doing the same thing that they are.

You get upset when they oppress you, but have no problem oppressing them. If I don't support it when they do it, I'm not going to support it when you do it.

[Endus]

Then by wanting the government on both sides, you are justifying the corporatism that results from it.

Corporatism doesn't result, and you've been complaining about the opposite of that. At this point, you've even given up being internally consistent.

I never said it was just on one side, my argument the entire time was that when they are both doing it, they are acting in the same manner. That's why I compared you to the corporatists, since you are doing the same thing that they are.

Look, we totally understand this claim, it just fails to hold any water at all, because "the government can enforce law" isn't a feature unique to corporatism. You're not talking about corporatism, you're talking about all government.

Unless you're a straight-up anarchist, you're not being consistent.

You get upset when they oppress you, but have no problem oppressing them. If I don't support it when they do it, I'm not going to support it when you do it.

Ensuring fair treatment of all parties is not "oppression". You're using words incorrectly.

We can't even get around to discussing anything ideological, because every point you make is based on either using words improperly, or blatantly and maliciously misrepresenting the positions of others.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then by wanting the government on both sides, you are justifying the corporatism that results from it. I don't want it on either side.

I never said it was just on one side, my argument the entire time was that when they are both doing it, they are acting in the same manner. That's why I compared you to the corporatists, since you are doing the same thing that they are.

You get upset when they oppress you, but have no problem oppressing them. If I don't support it when they do it, I'm not going to support it when you do it.

Your argument is futile and a complete waste of time then, because what you think is ideal will never happen. It's a waste. The government acts as a third party arbiter in these cases to balance out power.

The market that you describe, talking about choice and such, does not work in reality. Your entire premise this entire thread has relied on things existing that do not exist. In your world, you'd have to accept a salary 1/10 of what it is currently, because if you didn't someone else would do your work for even less than that.

[Machismo]

Corporatism doesn't result, and you've been complaining about the opposite of that. At this point, you've even given up being internally consistent.



Look, we totally understand this claim, it just fails to hold any water at all, because "the government can enforce law" isn't a feature unique to corporatism. You're not talking about corporatism, you're talking about all government.

Unless you're a straight-up anarchist, you're not being consistent.



Ensuring fair treatment of all parties is not "oppression". You're using words incorrectly.

We can't even get around to discussing anything ideological, because every point you make is based on either using words improperly, or blatantly and maliciously misrepresenting the positions of others.

I have no problem complaining about corporatism, which I often do.

You are the one being disingenuous, my stance has never wavered. I only support the restrictions of actions which create actual victims. Since even YOU agree that the business isn't the one who caused the actual harm, then your continued attempt to try and pass me off as an anarchist is just pitiful.

If you want to ensure "fair" treatment of all parties, that means the businesses get to use the government, as well. Since their preferred use is to push corporatist legislation, you justify the results. After all, if one side gets to unilaterally decide that their actions are "fair," then the other side gets to do the same.

Lucky for me, I don't think what either side is doing is "fair."

[Endus]

I have no problem complaining about corporatism, which I often do.

Yeah. And it's irrelevant, because literally nobody here has advocated for corporatist ideology. It's your most favoritest straw man, but resorting to it's still dishonest and misleading.

You are the one being disingenuous, my stance has never wavered. I only support the restrictions of actions which create actual victims. Since even YOU agree that the business isn't the one who caused the actual harm, then your continued attempt to try and pass me off as an anarchist is just pitiful.

This is just straight-up not true. You artificially restrict what your definition of "victim" is to only those particular concepts YOU want to have considered as "harm", and not the broader spectrum that includes social and economic harms that is the default standard throughout almost the entire world.

And no; I have never agreed that, in the case of paying its employees too little for a decent living, a corporation isn't the one causing the harm; they very clearly are.

If you want to ensure "fair" treatment of all parties, that means the businesses get to use the government, as well.

Never claimed otherwise.

Since their preferred use is to push corporatist legislation, you justify the results.

This is blatantly false, and demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of what "corporatism" actually is, as an ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

If the government is also weighing individual freedoms and concerns, then it is not corporatist. You're just using yet another word incorrectly.

[Glorious Leader]

And the reason you're not just wrongheaded here but being deliberately dishonest is that, in a representative system, the government is on both sides of that table, as a third party, to ensure fair conduct.

If you only see them intervening to protect one side, it's because that side is the only one being treated unfairly.

But then, you're literally trying to argue that millionaire CEOs are the oppressed class in modern society, so I really don't see how you think anyone could take your claims seriously.

There is no way you can seriously be claiming that government is only on one side of the table, here. Not in a society where one of the chief complaints is that corporate money gets far too much influence at the political level.

Actually in this I disagree. To call the government a fair party between labor and capital is disingenuous. The state as its conceived is merely a tool to protect the opulent minority from the poor majority. The only reason the state ever offers any protection for the poor is because of solidarity movements. Working men and woman rioting. Do you think fdr would have done the new deal if the country wasn't ready to revolt? That's always how it's been. Business and the state WILL NEVER do a damn thing for the poor majority unless forced too by mass populism.

[Machismo]

Yeah. And it's irrelevant, because literally nobody here has advocated for corporatist ideology. It's your most favoritest straw man, but resorting to it's still dishonest and misleading.



This is just straight-up not true. You artificially restrict what your definition of "victim" is to only those particular concepts YOU want to have considered as "harm", and not the broader spectrum that includes social and economic harms that is the default standard throughout almost the entire world.

And no; I have never agreed that, in the case of paying its employees too little for a decent living, a corporation isn't the one causing the harm; they very clearly are.



Never claimed otherwise.



This is blatantly false, and demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of what "corporatism" actually is, as an ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

If the government is also weighing individual freedoms and concerns, then it is not corporatist. You're just using yet another word incorrectly.

Your actions justify their actions, and vice versa.

If you can show me how a business is creating a victim by entering into a voluntary agreement with another entity, I'm all ears. Until then, you don't have a fucking leg to stand on. You are the equivalent of a person telling someone who says he's not a victim... that he is indeed a victim. The rampant social justice in this world is getting out of hand. You deciding that a stranger didn't get a good enough deal for your liking does not make him a victim.

[Glorious Leader]

Your actions justify their actions, and vice versa.

If you can show me how a business is creating a victim by entering into a voluntary agreement with another entity, I'm all ears. Until then, you don't have a fucking leg to stand on. You are the equivalent of a person telling someone who says he's not a victim... that he is indeed a victim. The rampant social justice in this world is getting out of hand. You deciding that a stranger didn't get a good enough deal for your liking does not make him a victim.

This once again ignores the quality of choice being offered to labor during its negotiations with capital. Business not only takes advantage of this poor quality if choice it often lobbies and pushes congress to make that choice as shitty as possible. Now to simple remove government from this WITHOUT RESTRAINING CAPITAL in some way will just result in those businesses execerising even more.power in labor negotiations. If you remove the obstacle that capital needed to lobby (bribe) by removing the government (the one force that could POTENTIALLY stand up to them) then no obstacle is prevented to capital to simple do what it pleases.


The apologists for this (people like you) are traitors to the species as the capitalists will eventually destroy the planet in their never ending search for profit.

[Endus]

Your actions justify their actions, and vice versa.

If by "actions", you mean "appealing to the government for equitable treatment of all parties", sure.

That's a pretty silly thing to get upset about, though. And it isn't, by any argument, "corporatism".

If you can show me how a business is creating a victim by entering into a voluntary agreement with another entity, I'm all ears.

Let's go back to the 1930s, when businesses were signing employees into contracts which obliged them to work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, for such low amounts of money that they had to force their children to work as well, or those children would starve.

That was so clearly abusive that it's why we have these laws today. You're not going to listen, because you haven't any of the other times I've listed this, but I don't have to convince you. I just have to convince everyone else of how bankrupt your views are.

You can't just ignore the coercive nature of hardship, nor can you just excuse companies for victimizing potential workers by taking advantage of that coercive factor on the sole grounds that they aren't responsible for creating it.

[Machismo]

This once again ignores the quality of choice being offered to labor during its negotiations with capital. Business not only takes advantage of this poor quality if choice it often lobbies and pushes congress to make that choice as shitty as possible. Now to simple remove government from this WITHOUT RESTRAINING CAPITAL in some way will just result in those businesses execerising even more.power in labor negotiations. If you remove the obstacle that capital needed to lobby (bribe) by removing the government (the one force that could POTENTIALLY stand up to them) then no obstacle is prevented to capital to simple do what it pleases.

I have no problem if they take advantage of a person's poor choices, I do have a problem if they lobby the government to make that choice as shitty as possible. Otherwise, we would be obligated to deem that all pawn chops create a victim whenever someone sells something to them. Would I be causing harm if I go to a store that is having a liquidation sale in order to keep its doors open? Am I causing harm if I shop at different car dealerships for the best deals?

If no government is involved, on either side, I see no way in which the business is causing actual harm. The business did not make the person poor. The business did not stop the person from looking for a different job. The business did not limit the person's skills or career choices. The business is certainly not the reason that person did not save enough money, or develop enough skills so that person could have a better negotiating position.

- - - Updated - - -

If by "actions", you mean "appealing to the government for equitable treatment of all parties", sure.

That's a pretty silly thing to get upset about, though. And it isn't, by any argument, "corporatism".



Let's go back to the 1930s, when businesses were signing employees into contracts which obliged them to work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, for such low amounts of money that they had to force their children to work as well, or those children would starve.

That was so clearly abusive that it's why we have these laws today. You're not going to listen, because you haven't any of the other times I've listed this, but I don't have to convince you. I just have to convince everyone else of how bankrupt your views are.

You can't just ignore the coercive nature of hardship, nor can you just excuse companies for victimizing potential workers by taking advantage of that coercive factor on the sole grounds that they aren't responsible for creating it.

So, if you want equitable treatment, and you want to demand concessions from the other side, what concessions are you going to make? You want to demand that they sacrifice, and are willing to use a gun to do it. Can they turn around and use that very same gun to demand you work longer hours as a concession?

I don't have to convince anyone, I already know most people are hypocrites and willfully ignorant. I simply enjoy pointing it out.

- - - Updated - - -

Your argument is futile and a complete waste of time then, because what you think is ideal will never happen. It's a waste. The government acts as a third party arbiter in these cases to balance out power.

The market that you describe, talking about choice and such, does not work in reality. Your entire premise this entire thread has relied on things existing that do not exist. In your world, you'd have to accept a salary 1/10 of what it is currently, because if you didn't someone else would do your work for even less than that.

As long as there are oppressive people who want to act like you do, of course it will never happen. That does not mean I'm not more than happy to point out the hypocrisy of it all.

If a minimum wage is absolutely required, then why do some nations have a very good standard of living with no minimum wage? Your claims are immediately disproven by those nations.

[Deleted]

This once again ignores the quality of choice being offered to labor during its negotiations with capital. Business not only takes advantage of this poor quality if choice it often lobbies and pushes congress to make that choice as shitty as possible. Now to simple remove government from this WITHOUT RESTRAINING CAPITAL in some way will just result in those businesses execerising even more.power in labor negotiations. If you remove the obstacle that capital needed to lobby (bribe) by removing the government (the one force that could POTENTIALLY stand up to them) then no obstacle is prevented to capital to simple do what it pleases.


The apologists for this (people like you) are traitors to the species as the capitalists will eventually destroy the planet in their never ending search for profit.

Basically agree though it is worth pointing out that in many cases government will aid the capitalists rather than the workers. It would obviously be better to have a pro-worker government, but there hasn't been such a thing in the west for a while.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I have no problem if they take advantage of a person's poor choices, I do have a problem if they lobby the government to make that choice as shitty as possible. Otherwise, we would be obligated to deem that all pawn chops create a victim whenever someone sells something to them. Would I be causing harm if I go to a store that is having a liquidation sale in order to keep its doors open? Am I causing harm if I shop at different car dealerships for the best deals?

If no government is involved, on either side, I see no way in which the business is causing actual harm. The business did not make the person poor. The business did not stop the person from looking for a different job. The business did not limit the person's skills or career choices. The business is certainly not the reason that person did not save enough money, or develop enough skills so that person could have a better negotiating position.

- - - Updated - - -



So, if you want equitable treatment, and you want to demand concessions from the other side, what concessions are you going to make? You want to demand that they sacrifice, and are willing to use a gun to do it. Can they turn around and use that very same gun to demand you work longer hours as a concession?

I don't have to convince anyone, I already know most people are hypocrites and willfully ignorant. I simply enjoy pointing it out.

- - - Updated - - -



As long as there are oppressive people who want to act like you do, of course it will never happen. That does not mean I'm not more than happy to point out the hypocrisy of it all.

If a minimum wage is absolutely required, then why do some nations have a very good standard of living with no minimum wage? Your claims are immediately disproven by those nations.

Said nations have strong unions that act in the same exact manner as government does. Some sort of threat is used to ensure employees are paid enough. Your objection only seems to be government coercion, but you seem fine with OTHER forms of coercion, which makes you inconsistent and hypocritical. Both are people coming together and use some sort of threat to ensure businesses treat them fairly.

It's silly that your objection is government simply on principle of it being government and nothing else, since using unions to make wages higher is effectively equal in enforcement. Your claims are the ones that are ridiculous here.

And again, you can't seem to acknowledge that a lot of the time businesses simply have the power to coerce employees to do what they want them to do, not with a gun. You think coercion must be done with a gun, but how is death by starvation any different in terms of using fear? It's not, you just like to pretend it is, because acknowledging otherwise means you're wrong.

[Machismo]

Said nations have strong unions that act in the same exact manner as government does. Some sort of threat is used to ensure employees are paid enough. Your objection only seems to be government coercion, but you seem fine with OTHER forms of coercion, which makes you inconsistent and hypocritical. Both are people coming together and use some sort of threat to ensure businesses treat them fairly.

It's silly that your objection is government simply on principle of it being government and nothing else, since using unions to make wages higher is effectively equal in enforcement. Your claims are the ones that are ridiculous here.

And again, you can't seem to acknowledge that a lot of the time businesses simply have the power to coerce employees to do what they want them to do, not with a gun. You think coercion must be done with a gun, but how is death by starvation any different in terms of using fear? It's not, you just like to pretend it is, because acknowledging otherwise means you're wrong.

And as I've said before, I have no problem with unions. I have an issue with government getting involved. I think unions are good at threatening strikes and boycotts, it's a very effective negotiating tool.

They are not equal in enforcement, since one is a legal authority over all people in that area. If you want unions to replace the government in negotiations, I'm all for it.