3 ms·

What are you talking about? I was showing how ridiculous the strawman is that it's a simple 'people vs business' decision. People and business are ultimately on

by hueving 11y ago

What are you talking about? I was showing how ridiculous the strawman is that it's a simple 'people vs business' decision. People and business are ultimately one and the same. There is not one single country that has a terrible economy with a good life for its citizens. Unless the country is just riding on massive natural resources, the people have to work enough to sustain the lifestyle they live. Other countries aren't going to support them indefinitely.

acdha 11y ago
You haven't shown anything of the sort. iandanforth made the factual observation that various countries define the worker:employer relationship differently and you responded with a facile assertion that only foolish people would fail to put economic interests over people and a single cherry-picked example, which itself was too simplistic to be of use[1]. Now you're going on with some narrative about how people don't want to work which is straight out of right-wing talk radio and which you've failed to supported even with an anecdote this time. It's absurd to claim that poor countries are poor because they provide too many benefits to workers at the expense of business when we regularly hear reports about the brutally unforgiving lifestyles of sweatshop workers, subsistence farmers, etc. Conversely, you've failed to even show awareness that some countries have both strong economies and significant social support – Germany provides significantly more for workers than the United States but it would be absurd to claim that this depends on other countries to “support them indefinitely”. So … could you start over and explain precisely the principle you believe is in effect here, and how it holds true across e.g. the G-10 countries? 1. Greece's economy wasn't exactly great before but their immediate crisis was caused by corruption aided by malfeasance by major banks, not inefficiencies which they've had for generations. Absolutely none of it had to do with benefits to workers or people being lazy.

by hueving 11y ago

acdha 11y ago

You haven't shown anything of the sort. iandanforth made the factual observation that various countries define the worker:employer relationship differently and you responded with a facile assertion that only foolish people would fail to put economic interests over people and a single cherry-picked example, which itself was too simplistic to be of use[1]. Now you're going on with some narrative about how people don't want to work which is straight out of right-wing talk radio and which you've failed to supported even with an anecdote this time. It's absurd to claim that poor countries are poor because they provide too many benefits to workers at the expense of business when we regularly hear reports about the brutally unforgiving lifestyles of sweatshop workers, subsistence farmers, etc. Conversely, you've failed to even show awareness that some countries have both strong economies and significant social support – Germany provides significantly more for workers than the United States but it would be absurd to claim that this depends on other countries to “support them indefinitely”. So … could you start over and explain precisely the principle you believe is in effect here, and how it holds true across e.g. the G-10 countries? 1. Greece's economy wasn't exactly great before but their immediate crisis was caused by corruption aided by malfeasance by major banks, not inefficiencies which they've had for generations. Absolutely none of it had to do with benefits to workers or people being lazy.