6 ms·

> If you willingly take on debt even though you know you will not be able to pay it you're committing criminal bankruptcy But even that's called "criminal bank

> If you willingly take on debt even though you know you will not be able to pay it you're committing criminal bankruptcy But even that's called "criminal bankrupty", and not "credit theft" or something. Possibly because you can't steal credit - it's either given, or it's not given. In the same way, work is either performed, or it's not performed. It's not somehow stealthily extracted from you while you're not looking.

patates 10y ago
So it's not stealing if you have no money and go eat in a restaurant?
spangry 10y ago
Correction: it's money given under the condition it will be paid back at some point in future. Someone who acquires credit, 'trade-credit' (i.e. deferred invoice payment) or whatever you call the employee/employer equivalent in the full knowledge that they will not be able to pay it back is basically committing fraud. As in, 'obtaining a financial benefit by means of deception'. But putting aside the legalism, it's just plain wrong.
- heysunshine123 10y ago
  Yes, fraud. Not theft. There's a difference, and everyone on HN knows it. People just want to rationalize using the word to mean something different from what it actually means, for dramatic effect. Your correction didn't apply, btw.
  - spangry 10y ago
    Ok I concede the point. The literal definition of 'theft' is not the same as 'fraud'. Btw, where's your evidence that 'everyone' on HN knows the difference? We are speaking literally here of course, where 'everyone' means literally every single individual who uses this site. Surely you're not just using hyperbole for 'dramatic effect', as you put it? At any rate it's ok. I think I understood your non-literal meaning (i.e. the vast majority). But good on you for clearing up that whole 'theft' issue; people were getting very confused there...
    - heysunshine123 10y ago
      What I meant about your correction was that you just tacked on a qualifier after "given". - I said credit is given - You said credit is given <and stuff>. Therefore, no correction. It really is safe to assume that we all have a shared understanding of what "theft" means in the real world. It's a simple word, and a simple concept that generally applies to physical property that is taken from its rightful owner, without the owner noticing, or at least without coercion being employed in acquiring it. If taking someone's property involves coercion, then we're talking about robbery, not theft. We all share this understanding too. Some people want to use the word for dramatic effect when virtue-signalling online, but that doesn't change the shared understanding.
      - spangry 10y ago
        Is it? Your definition of theft is something taken that is: - Physical property - Taken from the rightful owner - Taken without the owner noticing / no coercion So let's say I take your ATM card without you noticing. That's theft right? What if I then go to an ATM and drain your bank account? Given that money was never in your possession (it was just a number in an electronic ledger somewhere, one keeping track of all the loans made and credits owed by the bank [your deposit is credit to the bank, for instance]), then I'm not committing theft, right? Boy, this literal language stuff sure is tough! But I'd appreciate your clarification, as it seems so very important we only ever use language in a completely literal manner. It's interesting you bring up 'shared understanding'; you beat me to it. I doubt very much that anyone, except maybe your literal self, thinks employers are paying their workers and then physically stealing the money back when people use the phrase 'wage theft'. In other words, there's a 'shared understanding' of the non-literal meaning of that phrase. I mean, when someone calls someone else an 'oxygen thief' I don't think anyone else (again, except for maybe you) actually believes someone is running around stealthily taking oxygen molecules that don't belong to them. It's just a funny insult that literally everyone (-1) mutually understands in a non-literal way. And sorry, I have no idea what 'virtue signalling' is. Is it some kind of secret hand signal?
        heysunshine123 10y ago
tyingq 10y ago
>It's not somehow stealthily extracted from you while you're not looking In most cases, salaries are paid for work already performed. So, for at least the first cycle of a missed payroll, the non-paid work was stealthily extracted from you. And, typically, that's when the company starts telling stories about technical payroll glitches, and so on. Arguably more stealth.
jessaustin 10y ago
"I was going to pay later!" is not a defense for shoplifting, nor is it a defense for wage theft. Get credit from a bank or a credit card; they're capable of busting your ass for lying about when you'll pay. Employees, especially those who have had their wages stolen, are not in that position.
- heysunshine123 10y ago
  > "I was going to pay later!" is not a defense for shoplifting, nor is it a defense for wage theft. Apples and oranges. Shoplifting is a particular kind of theft - not paying someone's salary is not. A shoplifter takes something from a shop. An employer that doesn't pay someone's salary does not take something from the employee - he refrains from giving. Besides, work is not physical property. Most people on HN would object to pirating movies being called "theft" of intellectual property, but somehow it's alright to use the word when talking about not being paid one's salary.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Sophistry. Its the same as theft, except its my time that's being taken without compensation. Make up another word for that, that means the same thing as theft if you like.
    - heysunshine123 10y ago
      "Sophistry" right back at you.

patates 10y ago

So it's not stealing if you have no money and go eat in a restaurant?

spangry 10y ago

Correction: it's money given under the condition it will be paid back at some point in future. Someone who acquires credit, 'trade-credit' (i.e. deferred invoice payment) or whatever you call the employee/employer equivalent in the full knowledge that they will not be able to pay it back is basically committing fraud. As in, 'obtaining a financial benefit by means of deception'. But putting aside the legalism, it's just plain wrong.

heysunshine123 10y ago
Yes, fraud. Not theft. There's a difference, and everyone on HN knows it. People just want to rationalize using the word to mean something different from what it actually means, for dramatic effect. Your correction didn't apply, btw.
- spangry 10y ago
  Ok I concede the point. The literal definition of 'theft' is not the same as 'fraud'. Btw, where's your evidence that 'everyone' on HN knows the difference? We are speaking literally here of course, where 'everyone' means literally every single individual who uses this site. Surely you're not just using hyperbole for 'dramatic effect', as you put it? At any rate it's ok. I think I understood your non-literal meaning (i.e. the vast majority). But good on you for clearing up that whole 'theft' issue; people were getting very confused there...
  - heysunshine123 10y ago
    What I meant about your correction was that you just tacked on a qualifier after "given". - I said credit is given - You said credit is given <and stuff>. Therefore, no correction. It really is safe to assume that we all have a shared understanding of what "theft" means in the real world. It's a simple word, and a simple concept that generally applies to physical property that is taken from its rightful owner, without the owner noticing, or at least without coercion being employed in acquiring it. If taking someone's property involves coercion, then we're talking about robbery, not theft. We all share this understanding too. Some people want to use the word for dramatic effect when virtue-signalling online, but that doesn't change the shared understanding.
    - spangry 10y ago
      Is it? Your definition of theft is something taken that is: - Physical property - Taken from the rightful owner - Taken without the owner noticing / no coercion So let's say I take your ATM card without you noticing. That's theft right? What if I then go to an ATM and drain your bank account? Given that money was never in your possession (it was just a number in an electronic ledger somewhere, one keeping track of all the loans made and credits owed by the bank [your deposit is credit to the bank, for instance]), then I'm not committing theft, right? Boy, this literal language stuff sure is tough! But I'd appreciate your clarification, as it seems so very important we only ever use language in a completely literal manner. It's interesting you bring up 'shared understanding'; you beat me to it. I doubt very much that anyone, except maybe your literal self, thinks employers are paying their workers and then physically stealing the money back when people use the phrase 'wage theft'. In other words, there's a 'shared understanding' of the non-literal meaning of that phrase. I mean, when someone calls someone else an 'oxygen thief' I don't think anyone else (again, except for maybe you) actually believes someone is running around stealthily taking oxygen molecules that don't belong to them. It's just a funny insult that literally everyone (-1) mutually understands in a non-literal way. And sorry, I have no idea what 'virtue signalling' is. Is it some kind of secret hand signal?
      - heysunshine123 10y ago

tyingq 10y ago

>It's not somehow stealthily extracted from you while you're not looking In most cases, salaries are paid for work already performed. So, for at least the first cycle of a missed payroll, the non-paid work was stealthily extracted from you. And, typically, that's when the company starts telling stories about technical payroll glitches, and so on. Arguably more stealth.

jessaustin 10y ago

"I was going to pay later!" is not a defense for shoplifting, nor is it a defense for wage theft. Get credit from a bank or a credit card; they're capable of busting your ass for lying about when you'll pay. Employees, especially those who have had their wages stolen, are not in that position.

heysunshine123 10y ago
> "I was going to pay later!" is not a defense for shoplifting, nor is it a defense for wage theft. Apples and oranges. Shoplifting is a particular kind of theft - not paying someone's salary is not. A shoplifter takes something from a shop. An employer that doesn't pay someone's salary does not take something from the employee - he refrains from giving. Besides, work is not physical property. Most people on HN would object to pirating movies being called "theft" of intellectual property, but somehow it's alright to use the word when talking about not being paid one's salary.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Sophistry. Its the same as theft, except its my time that's being taken without compensation. Make up another word for that, that means the same thing as theft if you like.
  - heysunshine123 10y ago
    "Sophistry" right back at you.