3 ms·
That's still his decision. He has options: he may choose among different employers, who, may I remind you, compete with each other to get the best labor for the
by snitko 13y ago
That's still his decision. He has options: he may choose among different employers, who, may I remind you, compete with each other to get the best labor for the money. He may also educate himself and get a better paying job over time. Taxpayers have no options at all, except going to jail, not matter how educated or good they are.
- nzp 13y agoYou're trying to paint a reality that doesn't really exist. In practice the employer competition you mention comes down to competing who can pay the least, not who can pay the most. Income statistics show this trend very well, real income for workers is steadily declining. There is a fundamental imbalance of power, which can only be corrected with workers organizing into unions (and only somewhat if we're talking about conventional bureaucratic unions). I don't know where and in what social circles you live in, but most people on this planet can not simply choose to get an education that can significantly change one's material status. It costs money. Lots of money. Mind you, I'm in no way a supporter of state or taxes, but saying people who face real existential risks tied to not having a job or having only access to low paying jobs have more choice than people who don't like paying taxes is ultra cynical. It is not my intention to offend you, but it simply is. Get some perspective please.