wealth inequality

[Cthulhu 2020]

We've decided nothing, you decided.

Our minimum wage is still slightly above the historical average. There's certainly no historical justification to jack it up to $15 an hour.

Cost of living has dramatically increased above that historical value. Much of what people are expected to be able to afford to operate in today's society did not exist back then, or was not expected for basic functions.

[Machismo]

Sorry, paying people dirt takes away their fundamental freedoms. Wage slavery is a thing. What you are arguing for is absolute freedom which is more or less anarchy. What our country has decided is real freedom, is people's ability to work, live a decent life and be able afford their own betterment. If we were to let "the market" decide wages then you'd see the middle class disappear very rapidly.

And as pointed out, many of these businesses have legislated a lot of this money to themselves out of the coffers of tax payers in one way or another. They have used government to give themselves money, and the ultimate irony is you defend it as their money, yet somehow oppose cronyism.

Then they should not work for dirt.

I'm not arguing for absolute freedom, I'm arguing for the most possible freedom, which means government's sole job, is to restrict only the actions which create actual victims.

I do not support business-forced legislation, that's corporatism. I think I've made that pretty clear. If youwant to push to get rid of all that legislation, I would be the first to support you.

[Bodakane]

Honestly, my employer would have a problem, I have been offered numerous jobs in the past few years. That's actually how I got my raises. When a company offers me more money, I take it to my manager, and see if he is willing to match it. He has every single time.

Clearly, your personal experience is how things work for everyone else.

Question, I need to know before dinner,....do we like pineapple on our pizza?

[Glorious Leader]

They should demand it, and they should unionize. They should not use the government to support them, because that means bringing a man with a gun to the negotiating table.

If you want to try that argument, then you are justifying corporatism and crony capitalism. If you are fine with people doing it, then you would also have to be fine with corporations doing it. I support neither.

The largest act of coercion and violence is the government enforcement of private property and contractual obligation. When you get up on that horse and decide your against private property then we can talk.

[Machismo]

You've been doing it this entire thread. Every single time you bring it up. Because you selectively identify "harm" as you want to redefine it, rather than as the law actually defines it.

Take your pick as to whether it means you're wrong because you're trying to redefine known terms, or because your new definition is circular to your conclusion.

Feel free to use the dictionary definition. Of course, you are doing the same thing, and you want to add on the threat of government force on top of that. I'm not trying to redefine anything. I have no problem using the dictionary definition of words.

- - - Updated - - -

The largest act of coercion and violence is the government enforcement of private property and contractual obligation. When you get up on that horse and decide your against private property then we can talk.

I have no problem if the government got out of the business of private property, as well as copyright and trademark laws. I'm fine with that.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then they should not work for dirt.

I'm not arguing for absolute freedom, I'm arguing for the most possible freedom, which means government's sole job, is to restrict only the actions which create actual victims.

I do not support business-forced legislation, that's corporatism. I think I've made that pretty clear. If youwant to push to get rid of all that legislation, I would be the first to support you.

You act as if people often have a buffet of choices for where to work and for how much. They don't. You would actually have a point if they did.

You support the fortunes made by cronyism staying in the hands of businesses instead of being given back to the workers from whom they took it. Even if you say you don't support cronyism, you're very defensive of the results.

[Vyxn]

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 is your goal with your wealth inequity propaganda? is it to help those on the lower end of the economic scale or is it to punish those on the upper end of the scale by claiming they make to much?



you do know income of those on the low end of the economic scale can increase and still have the wealth inequality gap also increase but according to your propaganda that isn't an improvement because the gap increased

so only explanation left it isn't about helping out those on the lower end of the economic scale but a punishment on those on the upper end

[Machismo]

Clearly, your personal experience is how things work for everyone else.

Question, I need to know before dinner,....do we like pineapple on our pizza?

I hope you like pineapple on your pizza. However, it must be mixed with salty or savory.

[Endus]

Feel free to use the dictionary definition. Of course, you are doing the same thing, and you want to add on the threat of government force on top of that. I'm not trying to redefine anything. I have no problem using the dictionary definition of words.

No, you're trying to restrict its use to "physical harm", ignoring that "economic harm" is a thing. And then you keep resorting to the entirely nonsensical "guy with a gun" interpretation of government, as if that kind of asinine caricature would be convincing to anyone.

[Glorious Leader]

Feel free to use the dictionary definition. Of course, you are doing the same thing, and you want to add on the threat of government force on top of that. I'm not trying to redefine anything. I have no problem using the dictionary definition of words.

- - - Updated - - -



I have no problem if the government got out of the business of private property, as well as copyright and trademark laws. I'm fine with that.

The country would collapse or the wealthy and the elite would fill in the power vacuum with private defense firms I.e more violence just not state violence.

[Machismo]

You act as if people often have a buffet of choices for where to work and for how much. They don't. You would actually have a point if they did.

You support the fortunes made by cronyism staying in the hands of businesses instead of being given back to the workers from whom they took it. Even if you say you don't support cronyism, you're very defensive of the results.

People have the options that allow for themselves. Most people who get a job... never bother to look for a better one. That's a choice they make. Most people never ask for a raise, and rarely try to improve their marketability. Once again, that's not the company's fault. I'm always "looking" for a new job, because it's a damn good way to get raises. And if I decide to leave, then I have options. A lack of options is not the fault of the company, it's the fault of the employee.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're trying to restrict its use to "physical harm", ignoring that "economic harm" is a thing. And then you keep resorting to the entirely nonsensical "guy with a gun" interpretation of government, as if that kind of asinine caricature would be convincing to anyone.

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.

[Endus]

what is your goal with your wealth inequity propaganda? is it to help those on the lower end of the economic scale or is it to punish those on the upper end of the scale by claiming they make to much?

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

you do know income of those on the low end of the economic scale can increase and still have the wealth inequality gap also increase but according to your propaganda that isn't an improvement because the gap increased

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.

[Machismo]

The country would collapse or the wealthy and the elite would fill in the power vacuum with private defense firms I.e more violence just not state violence.

Freedom and security are not the same thing.

[Mayhem]

Honestly, my employer would have a problem, I have been offered numerous jobs in the past few years. That's actually how I got my raises. When a company offers me more money, I take it to my manager, and see if he is willing to match it. He has every single time.

Oh, is that so? And you´re in favour of people getting the education needed to do your job?

[Vyxn]

You act as if people often have a buffet of choices for where to work and for how much. They don't. You would actually have a point if they did.

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

[Glorious Leader]

People have the options that allow for themselves. Most people who get a job... never bother to look for a better one. That's a choice they make. Most people never ask for a raise, and rarely try to improve their marketability. Once again, that's not the company's fault. I'm always "looking" for a new job, because it's a damn good way to get raises. And if I decide to leave, then I have options. A lack of options is not the fault of the company, it's the fault of the employee.

- - - Updated - - -



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.

Actually that's precisely it. For labor it's not about getting what they want rather it's about wanting what they get.

[Machismo]

Oh, is that so? And you´re in favour of people getting the education needed to do your job?

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.

[Glorious Leader]

Freedom and security are not the same thing.

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.

[Mayhem]

nothing is stopping you from becoming a top earner
nothing is stopping you from doing anything these other people are doing

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.

[Machismo]

Actually that's precisely it. For labor it's not about getting what they want rather it's about wanting what they get.

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.