"Sorry we are closed nobody wants to work here anymore due to government handouts"

[Captain N]

Practicality. If your that replaceable it's just easier to replace you then bargin with you. It's to sides to the same coin. The worker sells his labor at the highest price the employer wants to buy it at its lowest.

If someones selling what your selling for less they are going to go for the cheaper option.

Some will some won't personally I support unions.

And yet right here you support scab labor.

You can't even seem to keep your arguments straight.

[Krakan]

And yet, you argued for systems of duress to be present to push exactly that outcome.



Which, as I already explained, is absolute nonsense that willfully misunderstands what actually drives inflation.

You may as well be worrying about how higher wages will encourage more goblins to disguise themselves as people and take Earth-jobs.

I don't believe we can simply hand out luxuries it's true... we can provide the requirements for life food,shelter but yes I don't believe we can sustain offering luxuries ontop of that.

- - - Updated - - -

That's literally one of the central points of collective bargaining dude.



Again, literally the point of unions is to put those workers on a more equal footing with their employer in these negotiations. Regardless of who "skilled" the work is or isn't.



Those people are known as "scabs" generally. They're not viewed in a good light by anyone other than themselves and the companies who are happy to be able to have people voluntarily willing to be exploited for shit wages.

Then your limited by what the scab will take. It's why I don't believe low skilled workers can effectively unionize nor do I believe you should be able to compel people into unions.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet right here you support scab labor.

You can't even seem to keep your arguments straight.

Sounds better when you phrase it as " you support the freedom to choose"

[Endus]

I don't believe we can simply hand out luxuries it's true...

And by talking about "luxuries", you're attacking a straw man, rather than engaging honestly with the concept of a UBI.

Why should I take you seriously if you're going to be so deliberately dishonest about what's being discussed?

[Muzjhath]

Agreed at least were its practical. If someone can be trained to do your job in a hour I don't think you can effectively bargin.

Tell that to McD in Sweden. And Burger King. And any other fastfood restraunt chain/franchise.
They are all unionized here. And got union contracts.

Because of that they can't fire their entire workforce and recruit a new one that's not union. (Neither can they disolve and restart buisness. They'd get hammered by the law).

Also, the driver of inflation is how big the money supply is. Not who has the money.
Nobody who argues for UBI or better support structure/more equitable wage distribution argues for the Federal Bank(s) to just print more money. They argue for taxes to be smarter and more dilligently collected.

[Katchii]

They don't want people to suffer, they want them to struggle, overcome and emerge from it as better selves thus improving society as a whole. Protestant ethics, if you'd like. Not the ubuntu primal ethics where we share the last few leftovers, end up with nothing and live happily knowing everyone's life is equally shitty and no one is more "privileged" than the other

The term you're looking for is "work for" not "struggle."

People who are literally struggling, don't usually have upward mobility and plans to improve themselves on their mind nor do they even have the time to even consider those things because they're just trying to survive and make ends meet, going from paycheck to paycheck barely getting by, having to decide if they're going to pay rent this month or buy food for their family, typically while working more than one job.

There's nothing wrong with wanting people to work for higher standards of living, more luxury, higher pay, etc... but if you want people to improve themselves and be able to work for those things you have to give them the means to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

The staggering amount of people preposterously arguing that they are entitled to share of someone else's work on the premise of earning their bread on their own being a "suffering" for them is a proof we might be "there" sooner than you think, may you enjoy living in the freeloaders' paradise once you get there

So Jeff Bezos and other millionaires literally got every dollar they earned because of how hard they work? Bullshit.

They're taking advantage of and exploiting their own workforce, paying them lower wages to help ensure they make higher profits. If companies like Amazon paid each of their workers, not only a living wage, but one where they could be quite comfortable, Jeff Bezos would still be nauseatingly wealthy.

Jeff Bezos isn't rich because of how hard HE works, he's rich because of how hard his employees work. Don't get me wrong, he's earned his position due to his own worth ethic and decisions, but his continued massive wealth is not due in any large part because of how hard he alone works, it's everyone who works for him that enables him to continue making billions.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds better when you phrase it as " you support the freedom to choose"

Doesn't change the situation though.

You're just putting a positive spin on how you word it.

[Krakan]

And by talking about "luxuries", you're attacking a straw man, rather than engaging honestly with the concept of a UBI.

Why should I take you seriously if you're going to be so deliberately dishonest about what's being discussed?

We simply have differing opinions on what are necessities and how much we believe a government owes it's people. I see a single room with heat during winter and food that requires preparation as acceptable you believe it should be greater.

[Yadryonych]

The term you're looking for is "work for" not "struggle."

People who are literally struggling, don't usually have upward mobility and plans to improve themselves on their mind nor do they even have the time to even consider those things because they're just trying to survive and make ends meet, going from paycheck to paycheck barely getting by, having to decide if they're going to pay rent this month or buy food for their family, typically while working more than one job.

There's nothing wrong with wanting people to work for higher standards of living, more luxury, higher pay, etc... but if you want people to improve themselves and be able to work for those things you have to give them the means to do so.

I used the word "struggle" as a counterpart of "suffering". It is one's decision, whether his hardships are a suffering or a struggle and it's pretty clear which one would blame his current state of being on some external entities and circumstances as well as completely rely on help from external entities and which one would work for a way out on his own.

So Jeff Bezos and other millionaires literally got every dollar they earned because of how hard they work? Bullshit.

They're taking advantage of and exploiting their own workforce, paying them lower wages to help ensure they make higher profits. If companies like Amazon paid each of their workers, not only a living wage, but one where they could be quite comfortable, Jeff Bezos would still be nauseatingly wealthy.

Jeff Bezos isn't rich because of how hard HE works, he's rich because of how hard his employees work. Don't get me wrong, he's earned his position due to his own worth ethic and decisions, but his continued massive wealth is not due in any large part because of how hard he alone works, it's everyone who works for him that enables him to continue making billions.

Yes, every single dollar he has now is a result of the enormous initial effort he put in. Of course, now when the business is up and running it might seem running on its own, but even considering this a truth, none of this would be functioning without the massive amount of work he and others invested at the very beginning of it

[Glorious Leader]

The staggering amount of people preposterously arguing that they are entitled to share of someone else's work on the premise of earning their bread on their own being a "suffering" for them is a proof we might be "there" sooner than you think, may you enjoy living in the freeloaders' paradise once you get there

"Entitled to a share of someone else's work" is exactly how capital works.

- - - Updated - - -

Strange concept there considering we've got enough evidence that American social mobility is terrible compared to the rest of the first world. As for suffering improving society that's laughable considering the US leads the world in incarceration rates and crime is directly tied to poverty. If you want to describe "leftovers" we already have that...it's called trickle down economics where the guys at the top get 9 of the 10 cookies leaving workers across the board fighting over the last one. The difference is you got your mouth firmly around the dick of that type of system....the rest of us are tired of the country continuing to give that 10th cookie to the people who already have the rest.



Wow that's pretty terrible for the United States then. We could do all the things those other countries do and it wouldn't phase us a bit. So it's basically right-wing fearmongering and bootstrap nonsense that gets people to believe that folks deserve to suffer?

It's actually worse than that because privatized insurance is in effect a tax. When you factor in the cost of privatized medicine it's far worse.

[Endus]

"Entitled to a share of someone else's work" is exactly how capital works.

It's honestly amazing how few supposed capitalists actually understand what capitalist economics even is.

Literally the entire point of capitalism as economic theory is that work should not determine wealth, ownership of the means of production should, by exploiting those who do work.

Particularly silly when they accuse me of wanting people to not enjoy the fruits of their own labor, when I'm the guy arguing for a worker-owned-collectives model of ownership for the means of production.

[Glorious Leader]

It's honestly amazing how few supposed capitalists actually understand what capitalist economics even is.

Literally the entire point of capitalism as economic theory is that work should not determine wealth, ownership of the means of production should, by exploiting those who do work.

Particularly silly when they accuse me of wanting people to not enjoy the fruits of their own labor, when I'm the guy arguing for a worker-owned-collectives model of ownership for the means of production.

When your analysis of the current mode of production blindly ignores any concept of class or structure you can get go down some funny paths in order to justify the current socioeconomic paradigm.

[Katchii]

Yes, every single dollar he has now is a result of the enormous initial effort he put in. Of course, now when the business is up and running it might seem running on its own, but even considering this a truth, none of this would be functioning without the massive amount of work he and others invested at the very beginning of it

I think you're being incredibly dishonest or ignorant about how Jeff Bezos got where he is. He didn't get where he is on his own, and I promise he's not currently, and never was, the only one in his company that works hard.

[s_bushido]

I promise he's not currently, and never was, the only one in his company that works hard.

The drivers shitting in bags so that they can stay in their trucks to meet their quotas say "hi."

[Egomaniac]

Wherein you unapologetically and unironically suggest people are better off suffering so the rich can get more rich, than cooperating and being happy together.

And it only applies to the poor. The poor have to struggle and suffer....but the rich shouldn't be inconvenienced in the slightest bit.

[Endus]

And it only applies to the poor. The poor have to struggle and suffer....but the rich shouldn't be inconvenienced in the slightest bit.

In fact, asking them to give up just a little bit of what they exploited out of their employees' labor is treated as a direct and untenable assault on their very being.

Really, I think it's that they realize precisely how out of whack their income is to their actual contribution, and they're dead fucking scared the normies will figure out the con.

[Masark]

Really, I think it's that they realize precisely how out of whack their income is to their actual contribution, and they're dead fucking scared the normies will figure out the con.

They're worried about Pinata economics gaining popularity.

[Glorious Leader]

In fact, asking them to give up just a little bit of what they exploited out of their employees' labor is treated as a direct and untenable assault on their very being.

Really, I think it's that they realize precisely how out of whack their income is to their actual contribution, and they're dead fucking scared the normies will figure out the con.

Well yea.... in a sense they're basically all Marxists

[Twdft]

The staggering amount of people preposterously arguing that they are entitled to share of someone else's work

Riddle me this: if I already have a million dollars, spend half an hour to set up an account and buy some S&P 500 ETF, which will easily net me $30.000 after a year. Who exactly did work for these $30k? Was it the half hour I spent clicking through terms and conditions and wiring the money? Or rather the hard working minimum wage slaves in all the companies my ETF covers?

[Yadryonych]

Riddle me this: if I already have a million dollars, spend half an hour to set up an account and buy some S&P 500 ETF, which will easily net me $30.000 after a year. Who exactly did work for these $30k? Was it the half hour I spent clicking through terms and conditions and wiring the money? Or rather the hard working minimum wage slaves in all the companies my ETF covers?

Unless you are a stockbroker operating that million on wage slaves' behalf, I'm afraid the fruits of your insightful investment is entirely yours.

Of course you can take a ride down the skid row and throw some money at poor people if you feel guilty for earning more than them, just don't make everyone do the same thing

- - - Updated - - -

I promise he's not currently, and never was, the only one in his company that works hard.

And I never said so either

[segara82]

Yes, every single dollar he has now is a result of the enormous initial effort he put in. Of course, now when the business is up and running it might seem running on its own, but even considering this a truth, none of this would be functioning without the massive amount of work he and others invested at the very beginning of it

Actually no.
He came from privilege and was supported by outsiders:
Jeff Bezos was already well off before he started Amazon (worth several hundred k),
and when his company was about to go bust in 1995 his parents invested anoterh ~250.000 $ into his company to stay afloat.
Since then he has used every loophole in the tax code to avoid paying taxes as much as possible,
invested millions in union busting to keep his workers poor,
lobbied every politician he could think of to get goverment contracts,
even got a personaly tailored bail-out thanks to bribed/lobbied politicians:


So no, not his hard work.

Unless you want to say that people should cheat, lie and bribe their way to success.

[Yadryonych]

Actually no.
He came from privilege
Jeff Bezos was already well off before he started Amazon (worth several hundred k)

Before he started Amazon he worked in several other companies as an employee and earnt these money. He didn't miraculously find them on the roadside on his way to start Amazon. Earnt money are not privilege.

was supported by outsiders:
when his company was about to go bust in 1995 his parents invested another ~250.000 $ into his company to stay afloat.

One's own family are not outsiders. If you consider your own family outsiders I can only feel bad and sad for you. Also as you stated earlier he already had more money than they gave him before he started Amazon and there'a a high chance he was also providing to his family before the company experienced economical difficulties. If helping one's own son sounds like nothing to you, consider this returning a favour