> this would decimate the market I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing in aggregate. The market's been doing

> this would decimate the market I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing in aggregate. The market's been doing great lately, and it's largely been on the backs of the working class for the benefit of people who've had the money to capitalize on it. It's been over inflated for ages - if a shitty market is the cost for more equitable distributions of income and more humane workforce treatment, I'm game. I have the sneaking suspicion an arrangement that forces companies to focus on the long term well being of its workers (who, it's worth pointing out, don't want to deal with a job search, and such both want higher retention and for the company to not-fail) rather than short term stock price fluctuations will probably be for the better in the long run. > cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits We already have that. > She's announcing this merely to pad her resume before running in 2020. It doesn't have to be feasible, just needs to sound good. I actually agree with this - It's definitely to grab headlines (which it did) and there's no way it's passing in the next 3 years. That said, this is pretty much straight from the Tea Party playbook, see: ACA repeals in 2012-2016. Oh well. And anyway, I'd be happy to finally have one president in the white house whose main goal isn't to cater to corporations - it's been literal generations, and looking at the current state of the general US economy and the world, not for the better.