3 ms·
yeah they were protecting while USA corporations were expanding, too bad it doesn't trickle down that good. There was no disadvantage for the actual ruler, the
by brbrodude 8y ago
yeah they were protecting while USA corporations were expanding, too bad it doesn't trickle down that good. There was no disadvantage for the actual ruler, the profits. So.. Yeah, what was gonna happen happened.
Also, no maternity leave, no paternity leave, no social safety net, no unions, no paid vacations, etc, etc, etc. How did it happen? It's not really that of a mystery, they just had a very long strip-tease on the workers, removing protection piece-by-piece, for the 'job creators'! you may not be anti-capitalist, but capitalism is anti-you. Anyway, I'm an anti-capitalist so that's my point of view.
- mc32 8y agoThose countries are a different culture. Some of these things are seen as personal failings. There is also more reliance on family than govt or charity --the tradition for charity is limited. To be frank, I like seeing the government doing something to protect against unfair trade practices. At the same time, I wish unions would go back to their roots and work to protect workers rather than their current raison d'etre which is to perpetuate itself. When was the last time Unions demanded their reps push back on unfair trade?