Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Right, and where exactly are they going to go? If you haven't noticed the work environment is tight and most people can barely afford to live let alone quit a job and hope they find a new one or move to where they may be lucky to find a job.
|
Unemployment can be a bleak situation. That doesn't, however, strike me as a compelling reason to force employers to alleviate that situation on the terms of the unemployed. You don't force charity - at least not outside of a nebulous force like welfare - and you don't force exchange (businesses can choose to restrict their size to a single person, the owner), so why force charitable exchanges? What's so moral about coercing the greedy?
[qoute]Right, let's fuck the auto worker[/quote]
Employers should not be able to rape their employees without legal consequence.
Quote:
|
Hell, let's get rid of the minimum wage too, no sense in handcuffing those poor executives in what they pay their employees to clean the toilets.
|
They're not really 'poor' - at least not usually - but otherwise I agree.
[quoteYou cannot make ANYTHING or accomplish ANYTHING without the worker[/quote]
The employer is capable of being a worker. He's often severely limited in his output without additional workers, but then, so is your average blue-or-white collar worker when lacking the additional capital and infrastructure of an employer.
Quote:
|
Hell, let's just have child labor and sweatshops.
|
I don't agree with this. Children should not be treated as though they have an ability to properly consent (to labor, in this case) equal to that of an adult.
Quote:
|
Fuck the worker who wants to work 40 hours and have a little disposable income to enjoy life or save for retirement.
|
Why should someone disinclined to offer him that, be forced?
And again, rape's a no-no.
Quote:
|
Spoken like a true greedy executive who has his parachute all ready
|
Well, that's a neat trick on my part.
---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
that workers can and should share in the benefits of their labor
|
Sure. But capital owners can and should share in the benefits of the enhancement of that labor.
Quote:
|
and more basically that it is labor--and not the movement of capital taken in isolation---that generates profit/wealth
|
But often not nearly as much wealth without capital to back it up
Quote:
|
and that therefore wealth is SOCIAL, not private (at least not exclusively)...so there's no reason that the politics which shape how that wealth is distributed cannot be changed to the advantage of working people.
|
I don't understand the 'social' conclusion here, at least not in any way that would lead to your conclusion. As you note, wealth
can be entirely private. And when it isn't, I see no reason for a third party to modify freely-made agreements - to add coercion where there was previously none.
Quote:
|
you'd think this would be common sense. just goes to show you the extent to which american economic language is a rightwing language.
|
Common sense seems to me a vacuous term easily shaped by popular opinion. I wouldn't count your position as nonsensical, but I am glad to note that it isn't always common.
Quote:
|
it's not anything like a rational framework
|
You really throw out the 'irrational' jab far too often. All too often, it seems like you really mean "I don't like your values" rather than "they don't make sense".