27 ms·

I think this is oversimplifying the political compass. There are a whole class of people that believe helping people should be voluntary, not mandatory. Dignity

I think this is oversimplifying the political compass. There are a whole class of people that believe helping people should be voluntary, not mandatory. Dignity is something that comes from within, but if you want a "thriving wage", negotiate for it. The left supports all sorts of policies that make helping people compulsory, at which point it starts to more resemble slavery than charity. How would you define a "fair" wage? Enough to stay alive? Raise a family? Own a house? A car? A TV? An air conditioner? I personally don't see how entitling people to these things is remotely "fair". You'll note that none of this has anything remotely to do with religion. > I'm not sure how to even start to deescalate the situation. The best way would be to refrain from imposing your view of "good" or "fair" on other people. Society is about coexisting peacefully, not binding everyone into a single ideology.

JackMorgan 5y ago
You're right, it's definitely an oversimplification. I don't think though we live in a society that could allow people to negotiate for a thriving wage without a power as large as the government. It is in no way a hyperbole to state that if the American government's worker protections weaken much more we will have companies with their own private armies forcing people into company towns like what happened to our great grandparents. It wasn't that long ago, and a lot of people have forgotten how much blood was shed to give us the safely nets we have today. And yet so many people act as if individual freedom is what earned us those rights, not the government's strong arm and labor unions.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  You've rather hit the nail on the head - companies shouldn't be allowed to use violence (private armies) in order to force people to cooperate. Likewise, government should not be allowed to force terms of employment on employers. When things turn violent is the exact point the government should intervene, no sooner. It should otherwise refrain from interfering with private, peaceful negotiations between its citizens. Kellogg's is a perfect example here - the employees tried to collectively bargain for higher wages, and the employer decided that the cost of replacing the workforce was lower than the cost of meeting their demands. No violence required, just a voluntary basis for cooperation. This is how it should work.
  - JackMorgan 5y ago
    And yet the power Kellogg's has means that they can just find enough desperate people elsewhere to take their unlivable wage. It's a race to the bottom, and the end is a few massive companies all colluding to pay slave wages. See Amazon and Walmart for examples of this happening right now. People think that market will reach equilibrium, but don't realize that equilibrium will be reached with third world style factories with 12 hour days and dorms for the "employees" and nets outside the windows so they can't even die the way they want.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      heh, define "unlivable", these people are clearly still alive. Unskilled labour is usually in surplus. The only reason the likes of Walmart pay as little as they do is because our government subsidises their employees. We've already reached the equilibrium, we've just offshored all the suffering so we don't have to look at it. We still consume goods made in these places. By the way, the factories in places like Bangladesh offer an improvement in quality of life compared to subsistence farming, which is why people work there. Isn't that a good thing?

JackMorgan 5y ago

You're right, it's definitely an oversimplification. I don't think though we live in a society that could allow people to negotiate for a thriving wage without a power as large as the government. It is in no way a hyperbole to state that if the American government's worker protections weaken much more we will have companies with their own private armies forcing people into company towns like what happened to our great grandparents. It wasn't that long ago, and a lot of people have forgotten how much blood was shed to give us the safely nets we have today. And yet so many people act as if individual freedom is what earned us those rights, not the government's strong arm and labor unions.

thegrimmest 5y ago
You've rather hit the nail on the head - companies shouldn't be allowed to use violence (private armies) in order to force people to cooperate. Likewise, government should not be allowed to force terms of employment on employers. When things turn violent is the exact point the government should intervene, no sooner. It should otherwise refrain from interfering with private, peaceful negotiations between its citizens. Kellogg's is a perfect example here - the employees tried to collectively bargain for higher wages, and the employer decided that the cost of replacing the workforce was lower than the cost of meeting their demands. No violence required, just a voluntary basis for cooperation. This is how it should work.
- JackMorgan 5y ago
  And yet the power Kellogg's has means that they can just find enough desperate people elsewhere to take their unlivable wage. It's a race to the bottom, and the end is a few massive companies all colluding to pay slave wages. See Amazon and Walmart for examples of this happening right now. People think that market will reach equilibrium, but don't realize that equilibrium will be reached with third world style factories with 12 hour days and dorms for the "employees" and nets outside the windows so they can't even die the way they want.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    heh, define "unlivable", these people are clearly still alive. Unskilled labour is usually in surplus. The only reason the likes of Walmart pay as little as they do is because our government subsidises their employees. We've already reached the equilibrium, we've just offshored all the suffering so we don't have to look at it. We still consume goods made in these places. By the way, the factories in places like Bangladesh offer an improvement in quality of life compared to subsistence farming, which is why people work there. Isn't that a good thing?