"How can you say that some people have less rights because they earn more?" It's not that they have 'less rights' - it's that the expectations of the job are d

"How can you say that some people have less rights because they earn more?" It's not that they have 'less rights' - it's that the expectations of the job are different. You're a CEO, you're going to have to 'work a ton of hours' for your massive paycheque, it just goes with the job. You don't want it - stay VP or Director, or manager. CEO's, doctors etc. are not commodities. For hourly unskilled workers, 'labour' etc - there always have to be protections. Without them - we head back to 19th century oppression. I understand that's it's nuanced, and I agree that 'some salary' is a really, really crude way to define it ... but something needs to be there, or else you get 1/3 of Americans working 80 hours a week for de-facto $4/hour. Make no mistake - the 'free market wage' for 1/3 of Americans who's skills are commoditized, but who nevertheless to 'valuable work' is basically 1% above 'survival'. Well below poverty. You could argue the 'free market' decides how much value they actually provide, but I would argue that the rate is entirely a function of relative power disparity between the two parties (employee v. big corp) and nothing more. It's why 'minimum wage' laws exist in most places. 'Free markets' work when actors have agency, and some power ... when actors don't have some degree of power-parity, 99% of the surpluses go into the hands of one side of the equation.