3 ms·

I don’t think there’s much more to talk about here if you read my posts and come away with this question > I am a business owner, are you seriously saying I wo

by lovich 4y ago

I don’t think there’s much more to talk about here if you read my posts and come away with this question > I am a business owner, are you seriously saying I would rather dissolve my business than pay what it costs for labour (assuming i could still make money after paying that much for labour) Having to pay more for labor as a business when you can is not comparable to being so destitute that selling yourself into slavery is a better idea. It is equivalent to being bankrupt as a company. > by saving up before they become that desperate. That’s just hand waving away that it happens, and has happened in the past at greater frequency without government limitations on what rights people have. You started this off with advocating that the government should only set defaults and everything else is on the table and you’re response to asking what we do for people who hit the failure mode is to say “don’t fail”. It’s not an edge case, it’s not outliers. You might think so only because you are a century into heavy government intervention into business/employee relationships and to suggest that this is the natural state and would continue without government intervention is frankly, ridiculous > The bulk of people who subscribe to nanny state things considers it more apropriate to have a netflix subscription than set that money aside in an emergency fund, assuming they are paycheck-to-paycheck I felt like I might be a little too hot with my previous section and then I read this line. It’s obvious you subscribe to some equivalent of Calvinist theory where the poor deserve it and you are hand waving away the idea of failure. This is an ideological position and I hold the opposite ideological position so I think we’ve reached an impasse

redeeman 4y ago
> It’s obvious you subscribe to some equivalent of Calvinist theory where the poor deserve it and you are hand waving away the idea of failure. that is simply not true. I said very clearly the default way things work shouldnt happen to outliers. What exactly are you saying here? that most people are simply not able to handle themselves throughout their lives without the nanny state handling salary requirements to the evil companies? I would say this is PARTIALLY correct, but only because people have been lulled into relinquishing all sense of personal responsibility. its like helicopter parenting adults, by the nanny state. and your argument makes no logical sense anyway, how can someone that has marketable skills, WANTED by companies, then be not expected to be able to handle their life themselves? there will then of course be edge cases, those that through disease, low skill (and low ability, low intelligence etc) not be able to really earn a living. That does not make them worse people, and a different mechanism should help them have a decent life.
- lovich 4y ago
  When you characterize wanting worker protections as wanting a “nanny state” and then claim that the people who support that think it’s a better idea “to have a Netflix subscription than set that money aside in an emergency fund”, am I supposed to infer that you have a high opinion of people in this situation or that you think they deserve it? > and your argument makes no logical sense anyway, how can someone that has marketable skills, WANTED by companies, then be not expected to be able to handle their life themselves? Perhaps if I had started this chain off by talking about people with in demand skills, this would be an appropriate critique. However, I was speaking about when people are in a desperate situation which usually implies they don’t have some sort of leverage like in demand skills. Your suggestion of letting the government be the default but allowing employees and employees to negotiate whatever deal they want is already the case for people with leverage. People with in demand skills aren’t trying to negotiate a $2/hr wage but the “nanny state” is getting in their way. You’re proposed change to removing government minimums that cannot be negotiated away will only change the situation for people in desperate situations and you are continually hand waving that away as an outlier case despite that both A) not being an outlier, and B) being the vast majority of peoples whose personal situations would be affected by your proposal

by lovich 4y ago

redeeman 4y ago

> It’s obvious you subscribe to some equivalent of Calvinist theory where the poor deserve it and you are hand waving away the idea of failure. that is simply not true. I said very clearly the default way things work shouldnt happen to outliers. What exactly are you saying here? that most people are simply not able to handle themselves throughout their lives without the nanny state handling salary requirements to the evil companies? I would say this is PARTIALLY correct, but only because people have been lulled into relinquishing all sense of personal responsibility. its like helicopter parenting adults, by the nanny state. and your argument makes no logical sense anyway, how can someone that has marketable skills, WANTED by companies, then be not expected to be able to handle their life themselves? there will then of course be edge cases, those that through disease, low skill (and low ability, low intelligence etc) not be able to really earn a living. That does not make them worse people, and a different mechanism should help them have a decent life.

lovich 4y ago
When you characterize wanting worker protections as wanting a “nanny state” and then claim that the people who support that think it’s a better idea “to have a Netflix subscription than set that money aside in an emergency fund”, am I supposed to infer that you have a high opinion of people in this situation or that you think they deserve it? > and your argument makes no logical sense anyway, how can someone that has marketable skills, WANTED by companies, then be not expected to be able to handle their life themselves? Perhaps if I had started this chain off by talking about people with in demand skills, this would be an appropriate critique. However, I was speaking about when people are in a desperate situation which usually implies they don’t have some sort of leverage like in demand skills. Your suggestion of letting the government be the default but allowing employees and employees to negotiate whatever deal they want is already the case for people with leverage. People with in demand skills aren’t trying to negotiate a $2/hr wage but the “nanny state” is getting in their way. You’re proposed change to removing government minimums that cannot be negotiated away will only change the situation for people in desperate situations and you are continually hand waving that away as an outlier case despite that both A) not being an outlier, and B) being the vast majority of peoples whose personal situations would be affected by your proposal