wealth inequality

[Gestopft]

My question is absolutely relevant, it demonstrates your lack of logical consistency. If you claim forcing them to pay a "living wage" is not harm, then at what point exactly does forcing them to pay become harmful? I think you and I would both agree that forcing a company to pay $1000 an hour is harmful. So, where exactly is that line, and how did you come to that answer?

To give my own answer:
-It is harmful for the employee and for society when wages are below what one can live on.
-It is harmful for business and for society when wages are so high that businesses can't succeed.

The answer, is that there is a spectrum, not an exact number, and that where exactly the spectrum falls depends on factors within the area/community.

[Machismo]

To give my own answer:
-It is harmful for the employee and for society when wages are below what one can live on.
-It is harmful for business and for society when wages are so high that businesses can't succeed.

The answer, is that there is a spectrum, not an exact number, and that where exactly the spectrum falls depends on factors within the area/community.

That is actually a reasonable answer. I disagree with it, but it at least follows some logic.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Is it harmful? That was the question. Answer the fucking question. Here, I'll post them again.

If you claim forcing them to pay a "living wage" is not harm, then at what point exactly does forcing them to pay become harmful? I think you and I would both agree that forcing a company to pay $1000 an hour is harmful. So, where exactly is that line, and how did you come to that answer?

Secondly, you never addressed those other issues I brought up, are those examples of harm?

I addressed it perfectly, you just don't like the answer. Given time to ease into $1000/hr it's theoretically possible to do without causing harm. Currently minimum wage is easy for businesses to afford and does not cause them harm at all.

If people being forced into abject poverty working a shitty job, or choosing death, is their own fault and not harm, then using your own logic, minimum wage is not harm to business either.

[Gestopft]

Why is it up to a business to make sure its employees have enough money? is that somewhere in the contract they sign?

If they don't pay the employee enough to live on, the employee has to be subsidized by the rest of society. Now why should I the taxpayer have to pay for that employee that isn't working for me?

[Glorious Leader]

And I don't support it when businesses lobby to push laws into their favor.

Logical consistency is a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately it goes far beyond lobbying. As the business interest can simple move out of whatever state that doesn't aceed to its demands. This ensures that without a strong worker solidarity movement or left political class business interest will always be aceeds to and the business class will always either directly or indirectly be responsible for the harsh realities workers face. Business is in control of the means of production. They very means of life. Of course they are responsible for the conditions workers face. They have the power...

[Fugus]

So show me how you get to that number. Where does it become harmful to a business to force it to pay its labor?

Why is it up to a business to make sure its employees have enough money? is that somewhere in the contract they sign?

That is being willfully ignorant or flat out disingenuous on your part at this point.

It is up to the business to pay the full costs of its labor which includes the cost of providing for the person doing it. Having a worker employed with you and paying below what is costs to sustain them would be like getting a car and expecting the government to provide you with free gas to run it because you don't want to pay that expense.

And you are talking about contracts signed under duress as the workers must do something for food.

If we had a universal basic income where the workers could walk away if their is not viable options present, you might have a point. But we do not.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That is actually a reasonable answer. I disagree with it, but it at least follows some logic.

Why disagree with a perfectly reasonable position? If there is a spectrum where both businesses and people can thrive, why continue to advocate for businesses to have the ability to exploit people's wages?

[Machismo]

I addressed it perfectly, you just don't like the answer. Given time to ease into $1000/hr it's theoretically possible to do without causing harm. Currently minimum wage is easy for businesses to afford and does not cause them harm at all.

If people being forced into abject poverty working a shitty job, or choosing death, is their own fault and not harm, then using your own logic, minimum wage is not harm to business either.

So, it's not harmful... because you are easing them into the forced taking of their money... got it.

- - - Updated - - -

If they don't pay the employee enough to live on, the employee has to be subsidized by the rest of society. Now why should I the taxpayer have to pay for that employee that isn't working for me?

But why should the employer have to pay more than the employee is willing to work for?

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately it goes far beyond lobbying. As the business interest can simple move out of whatever state that doesn't aceed to its demands. This ensures that without a strong worker solidarity movement or left political class business interest will always be aceeds to and the business class will always either directly or indirectly be responsible for the harsh realities workers face. Business is in control of the means of production. They very means of life. Of course they are responsible for the conditions workers face. They have the power...

But worker solidarity can be achieved without government. Unions ca easily fill that role.

- - - Updated - - -

That is being willfully ignorant or flat out disingenuous on your part at this point.

It is up to the business to pay the full costs of its labor which includes the cost of providing for the person doing it. Having a worker employed with you and paying below what is costs to sustain them would be like getting a car and expecting the government to provide you with free gas to run it because you don't want to pay that expense.

And you are talking about contracts signed under duress as the workers must do something for food.

If we had a universal basic income where the workers could walk away if their is not viable options present, you might have a point. But we do not.

It is up to business to pay en employee what they agreed would be paid. I've seen a lot of employee contracts in my life, and I've never once seen anything about a living wage, or providing for that person's costs.

As for the latter, is that actually the fault of the employer?

- - - Updated - - -

Why disagree with a perfectly reasonable position? If there is a spectrum where both businesses and people can thrive, why continue to advocate for businesses to have the ability to exploit people's wages?

Just because you can thrive, does not mean harm isn't being caused. You claim absolutely no harm is caused, and I simply disagree.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So, it's not harmful... because you are easing them into the forced taking of their money... got it.

Is paying people 2 cents an hour harmful or not? If every business that the person has access to working for only pays that, is it not harmful simply because you insist they have a choice?

[Machismo]

Is paying people 2 cents an hour harmful or not? If every business that the person has access to working for only pays that, is it not harmful simply because you insist they have a choice?

If that person willingly agreed to it, no it's not harmful.

Of course, if nobody has money, then businesses cannot survive. That's why the fundamental principles of economics should be allowed to work freely.

You also never said if those other issues I brought up caused harm.

[Gestopft]

But why should the employer have to pay more than the employee is willing to work for?

This has been explained to you multiple times. The employee doesn't want that wage- they have to take it because they have no power to bargain it higher. They are "willing" to work for it because the other option is not having any money because they don't have a job.

If employers don't pay enough, the government has to. Are you really ok with governments essentially paying companies to employ people? You say you aren't a corporatist, but this is why everyone thinks the shoe fits. If you take away the power of governments to regulate businesses, the power of businesses to dictate terms to their workers increases.

But worker solidarity can be achieved without government. Unions ca easily fill that role.

Convince other libertarians of that. Tell them to use the lube of collective bargaining on their raging free market boners.

Edit: Ok maybe don't use that exact wording.

[Machismo]

This has been explained to you multiple times. The employee doesn't want that wage- they have to take it because they have no power to bargain it higher. They are "willing" to work for it because the other option is not having any money because you don't have a job.

If employers don't pay enough, the government has to. Are you really ok with governments essentially paying companies to employ people? You say you aren't a corporatist, but this is why everyone thinks the shoe fits. If you take away the power of governments to regulate businesses, the power of businesses to dictate terms to their workers increases.



Convince other libertarians of that. Tell them to use the lube of collective bargaining on their raging free market boners.

But it's not the employers fault. That's like saying I'm causing harm by purchasing a foreclosed home. Is it my fault? No. I'm simply the one capitalizing off of it.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been explained to you multiple times. The employee doesn't want that wage- they have to take it because they have no power to bargain it higher. They are "willing" to work for it because the other option is not having any money because you don't have a job.

If employers don't pay enough, the government has to. Are you really ok with governments essentially paying companies to employ people? You say you aren't a corporatist, but this is why everyone thinks the shoe fits. If you take away the power of governments to regulate businesses, the power of businesses to dictate terms to their workers increases.



Convince other libertarians of that. Tell them to use the lube of collective bargaining on their raging free market boners.

Edit: Ok maybe don't use that exact wording.

I'd rather complain about the hypocrisy of those who want to force the government to take away things from others, and who then turn around and whine when the same thing happens to them.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If that person willingly agreed to it, no it's not harmful.

Of course, if nobody has money, then businesses cannot survive. That's why the fundamental principles of economics should be allowed to work freely.

You also never said if those other issues I brought up caused harm.

So you think 2 cents an hour is not harmful if the person agrees to it, even if their only choice was that wage and death. That you think there is some meaningful difference between starvation and a gun is lolworthy.

Businesses have willingly agreed to abide by minimum wage laws, they have agreed to abide by all laws. When you get a business license, it is a contract to obey all laws of the region. Therefor by your logic, because they agreed to it, there is no harm. If you don't want to follow those laws, you can simply not agree to them and not set up shop. It's the same as a person having a choice between starving to death or working for 2 cents an hour.

[Fugus]

It is up to business to pay en employee what they agreed would be paid. I've seen a lot of employee contracts in my life, and I've never once seen anything about a living wage, or providing for that person's costs.

As for the latter, is that actually the fault of the employer?

You just ignored important parts of what you quoted for that soundbite.

It is up to the business to pay for the full costs of operating their business which includes the cost of providing for their workers.

And again, those workers were forced to sign those agreements under duress as they had to eat.

And I never said it was the fault of the employers that we don't have a universal basic income, I was pointing out that without them or some equivalent, your dream world with fair wage negotiations does not exist.

So quite literally you are advocating destroying our reality we have now because you can't tolerate it compared to your fantasy. If we ever get a livable universal income where the people can walk if the terms aren't acceptable to them or we have super strong unions that can negotiate on equal footing with them, you have ground for what you are saying but till then, you are trying to talk with both fingers in your ears and your foot in your mouth denying the reality of the situation.

And until we get either the unions or the basic incomes, the government and a living minimum wage are needed without throwing one group or the other to the wolves. And that isn't even getting into the levels of unemployment due to automation and such throwing it even further tilted in favor of the employers and against the employees.

Edit: AFK.

[Glorious Leader]

- - - Updated - - -



But worker solidarity can be achieved without government. Unions ca easily fill that role.

- - - Updated - - -

Which utterly and completely misses the point. I mean yes it can and that's what's called a syndacalist position which is no to far from anarchist or I guess anarcho-syndacalism. In fact most anarchist would agree that's preferable to a state-capatalist model. Anarchists are no friend of the state either as the state is a tool used largely to guarantee private property in the hands of the few and thus maintain hierarchy by granting a select priveleged few control over the means of production. I digress. Tk get back to the point. The business class has undermined unions for centuries initially through direct force (pinkertons) then later through propoganda and finally by exporting the means of production to cheap 3rd world labor. This is exactly as I said. In the quest for profit business found the cheapest labor it could UNDERMINING THE POSITION of labor at home. No government was needed for this, actually government could have potentially stopped it by enforcing capital controls and preventing capital flight and tarrifs. Government got out of the way (free trade) and that fucked workers over.

[zEmini]

Does wealth inequality include illegals? I am curious what the difference is if we only compare it with actual citizens.

[Glorious Leader]

But it's not the employers fault. That's like saying I'm causing harm by purchasing a foreclosed home. Is it my fault? No. I'm simply the one capitalizing off of it.

- - - Updated - - -



.

Yes it is!they buy law and if that doesn't work they threaten to leave and undermine the workers bargaining position not to mention the potential for the state to do anything to regulate them(as if...). They own the fucking means of production. They have the power. They can't also then not be responsible for the consequences of holding that power.

[Gestopft]

But it's not the employers fault. That's like saying I'm causing harm by purchasing a foreclosed home. Is it my fault? No. I'm simply the one capitalizing off of it.

No, it's not their fault that reality is the way it is. But it is damaging to people and to society to let them capitalize off of that dynamic. Which will happen without interference. Businesses care about themselves and their profits, not necessarily society as a whole. That isn't a criticism- I expect that of businesses. It is perfectly clear though that a counterbalance is needed for the betterment of society. Someone has to make sure that businesses (as well as individuals) aren't being destructive to society. That's why we have laws to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Does wealth inequality include illegals? I am curious what the difference is if we only compare it with actual citizens.

50% of Americans make less than $30,000/year. The inequality is staggering either way.

[zEmini]

No, it's not their fault that reality is the way it is. But it is damaging to people and to society to let them capitalize off of that dynamic. Which will happen without interference. Businesses care about themselves and their profits, not necessarily society as a whole. That isn't a criticism- I expect that of businesses. It is perfectly clear though that a counterbalance is needed for the betterment of society. Someone has to make sure that businesses (as well as individuals) aren't being destructive to society. That's why we have laws to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -



50% of Americans make less than $30,000/year. The inequality is staggering either way.

We should only care about American's when it comes to wealth inequality. Care to post where you found this? Does it only include working adults?

[Gestopft]

We should only care about American's when it comes to wealth inequality. Care to post where you found this? Does it only include working adults?

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014 there are numerous sites that reported on it, but that's the source material.