Definitely theft. Good to see that correct position is winning and being recognized.



Marxist nonsense.

The employers pay money in exchange for labor in voluntary exchanges.
An employer valuing the labor more than the money they pay doesn't mean the pay doesn't exist.


The employee on the other hand values the pay more than the labor, which is evidenced by the fact that they take the job and work. Does this mean the employee doesn't actually work? of course not.

Value is subjective, not failed LTV nonsense.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 4 2019 10:55pm

Except in your free market paradise the options would be do the work or starve to death.

Thats a fantasy, not an argument.

No its a fact, you already advocate for child sweat shops on the grounds that it is better than the alternatives and in the free market their will not be any alternatives.

Your delusions are not facts sir.


I advocate against banning foreign businesses in poor countries because banning them would lead to worse outcomes and deprives poor people of opportunities to better their lives and feed their families. That doesnt mean they are the best and only option that would exist in a free market.
Your inability to honestly deal with these facts does not somehow indicate more liberty and economic freedom would cause widespread poverty and starvation with only sweatshops being an alternative.

We spent the last few hundred years organising unions and governments to escape from that liberty and economic freedom for the oligarchs.
I sure do miss the 80 hour work week, no holidays and no minimum wage.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 4 2019 11:12pm

You should read some economics books and better history books instead of total nonsense and fearmongering.

The government hampering the market and banning low wages is not what causes a reduction in the number of hours necessary to provide a certain standard of living. It was capitalism and economic freedom that drove innovation and wealth creation and distributed affordable and abundant goods and services to the masses.
You choose to instead place all economic success at the feet of bad government policies and pretend freer markets would cause 80 hour work weeks and starvation being the norm, based on absolutely nothing.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 4 2019 11:46pm

Oh bullshit, we can literally name the day each step forward happened and it was almost always due to unions, NOT the "free market".


Coal strikes, 1900–1902
Main article: Coal Strike of 1902
The United Mine Workers was successful in its strike against soft coal (bituminous) mines in the Midwest in 1900, but its strike against the hard coal (anthracite) mines of Pennsylvania turned into a national political crisis in 1902. President Theodore Roosevelt brokered a compromise solution that kept the flow of coal going, and higher wages and shorter hours, but did not include recognition of the union as a bargaining agent.

What part of this was the "free market"?
The coal barons were not going to give up profits to keep workers happy to appease your free market fairy.
We literally know 100% for a fact that before union and government involvement when your free market was in place, 80 hour work weeks were the norm..
You can't pretend history didn't happen.
We only need to look back 100 years to see your free market garbage in action.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 4 2019 11:55pm

The coal strike of 1900-1902 (LOL) being partially settled by unions and a president didn't magically make jobs more productive and an 80 hour work week unnecessary.

My claim is not that government was never involved in any labor disputes.


Your fantastical fear-mongering claims about free markets remain unsupported by nothing but your emotion.



Your entire world view here is a massive post hoc fallacy

There were centuries of economic development and innovation since then. That doesn't magically disappear if the economy becomes freer.

If there was more economic freedom now there wouldn't be a need to work 80 hours a week as a norm. You have no valid logical connection or causation there.


The industrial revolution and ensuing years were a time of exponential and remarkable economic growth and wealth creation unprecedented in human history.
Looking at poor conditions 100 years ago relative to now does not mean the living conditions of a society with economic freedom are capped at what existed 100 years ago.

Except the corporations are fighting to cut penalty rates and other benefits right this very second..
Its not 1902, but they wish it was.
Gina rhinehart has already said australian workers should be more competitive with african workers who work for $3 an hour..
So she can make more profit..
Her net worth is 14 billion, and a lot of it is pure cash.

You want more freedom and less regulation for corporate monsters with no morals or empathy who's only goal is to increase share holder profits..
What on earth makes you think this would in any way improve the life of the average person?

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 5 2019 12:14am