5 ms·

> Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur. Not really. It's just a snarky illustration that there's more to consider than effects on consumer prices.

by ardy42 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. > It's just a snarky illustration It's an illustration that familiarity with a subject is not a prerequisite for arrogant pontification.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Not sure why you feel that an /s tag is necessary. Why not make your point in plain terms so people can read, understand, and respond? > Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. Yes, however one will be murdered for his refusal to be a slave, whereas one will starve to death or die of exposure for his failure to produce food and shelter. There is no equivalence between being murdered and the natural result of failing to work for food and shelter. > The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, Its not a "panacea," merely a matter of basic human rights that someone should be allowed to choose where to work (or if they want to work at all). > when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all. They are given as many choices as there are other people offering deals. That they need food and shelter to live is a fact of nature, not something capitalists invented so as to replace slavery.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Its not a "panacea," merely a matter of basic human rights that someone should be allowed to choose where to work (or if they want to work at all). It's a panacea in the sense you seem to see that ritualized choice as a cure for whatever negatives are implicit in all the choices presented, and thus a license to ignore them. To tie things back to the beginning, you reacted to a story about the decline in many people's standard of living with a rather tone-deaf observation that some other people will benefit from that decline. Maybe you should consider that decline they experience a little more thoughtfully.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > It's a panacea in the sense you seem to see that ritualized choice as a cure for whatever negatives are implicit in all the choices presented, I was merely responding to your attempt to conflate slavery with a voluntary agreement. > To tie things back to the beginning, you reacted to a story about the decline in many people's standard of living with a rather tone-deaf observation that some other people will benefit from that decline. Maybe you should consider that decline they experience a little more thoughtfully. I observed that the suggested solution to the decline in standard of living would not have the desired effect. At no point have you challenged this observation, which suggests that you have no reason to dispute it. Several times now, you have displayed a poor attitude, which is well within your rights as a human being but suggests you don't have anything to offer to move the discussion forward. > Maybe you should consider that decline they experience a little more thoughtfully. Sure, why don't you do the same? I suggest reflecting on the economic realities of scarcity and the labor-multiplying effect of capital.
        ardy42 6y ago
        > I was merely responding to your attempt to conflate slavery with a voluntary agreement. ...and apparently missing the actual point in the process.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur. Not really. It's just a snarky illustration that there's more to consider than effects on consumer prices.

by ardy42 6y ago

> Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur. Not really. It's just a snarky illustration that there's more to consider than effects on consumer prices.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. > It's just a snarky illustration It's an illustration that familiarity with a subject is not a prerequisite for arrogant pontification.

ardy42 6y ago
> It falsely equivocates capturing people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to work under pain of death with offering someone a deal where they voluntarily carry out tasks in return for a certain wage and can leave at any time. Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Sadly, you don't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Why not lower those costs to the minimum? /s Not sure why you feel that an /s tag is necessary. Why not make your point in plain terms so people can read, understand, and respond? > Also, a wage laborer who opts out of the wage labor system will likely end up just as dead as a slave who tries to opt out of the slave system. Yes, however one will be murdered for his refusal to be a slave, whereas one will starve to death or die of exposure for his failure to produce food and shelter. There is no equivalence between being murdered and the natural result of failing to work for food and shelter. > The "voluntariness" of wage labor isn't quite the panacea is seems to be, Its not a "panacea," merely a matter of basic human rights that someone should be allowed to choose where to work (or if they want to work at all). > when you realize many people are given the choice between one or more shitty jobs or no job at all. They are given as many choices as there are other people offering deals. That they need food and shelter to live is a fact of nature, not something capitalists invented so as to replace slavery.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Its not a "panacea," merely a matter of basic human rights that someone should be allowed to choose where to work (or if they want to work at all). It's a panacea in the sense you seem to see that ritualized choice as a cure for whatever negatives are implicit in all the choices presented, and thus a license to ignore them. To tie things back to the beginning, you reacted to a story about the decline in many people's standard of living with a rather tone-deaf observation that some other people will benefit from that decline. Maybe you should consider that decline they experience a little more thoughtfully.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > It's a panacea in the sense you seem to see that ritualized choice as a cure for whatever negatives are implicit in all the choices presented, I was merely responding to your attempt to conflate slavery with a voluntary agreement. > To tie things back to the beginning, you reacted to a story about the decline in many people's standard of living with a rather tone-deaf observation that some other people will benefit from that decline. Maybe you should consider that decline they experience a little more thoughtfully. I observed that the suggested solution to the decline in standard of living would not have the desired effect. At no point have you challenged this observation, which suggests that you have no reason to dispute it. Several times now, you have displayed a poor attitude, which is well within your rights as a human being but suggests you don't have anything to offer to move the discussion forward. > Maybe you should consider that decline they experience a little more thoughtfully. Sure, why don't you do the same? I suggest reflecting on the economic realities of scarcity and the labor-multiplying effect of capital.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > I was merely responding to your attempt to conflate slavery with a voluntary agreement. ...and apparently missing the actual point in the process.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago