and the number of people in the labor pool is effectively unlimited at least globally
Is skilled labor unlimited? If that were the case, everyone would have next to no wages, the value of work would be substantially lower since anyone can do it, and nearly nobody could compete for a job.
I just explained to you why Musk has a moral right to STOP paying salaries and fire all his workers whenever he feels like it, and retire.
You remind me of that guy on Office Space who was fired but showed up every day due to an "accounting glitch."
No, the idea that Musk has a moral obligation to offer someone a job in the first place at any wage, minimum or zero, is exploitation.
That's enslavement, and Musk would never allow you to do that to him.
As I said, he has a moral right to pay his employees zero dollars, offer zero jobs to anyone else if and when they leave, and retire.
If it's a moral right for you to penalize a productive person, it's also a moral right for that person to stop producing, and to stop hiring, and to buy an army of robots.
Your arguments seemed like you were trying to exploit Musk.
It's my opinion that Musk would rather set all his wealth on fire before he would let you do that to him.
And yes, people do have a moral right to retire and stop paying the government an income tax.
Almost everyone can get rich; it's a simple calculus. Consume less than you produce. It's that easy. And incredibly easy in today's technological age, where you don't have to build a house out of logs and hunt the forest for food.
If one cannot or will not produce, one cannot ever be rich. Accept it.
The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest; the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole
Wrong, the job of a capitalist is to look after the interests of the consumers, or society. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.
The job of a politician is to look after himself and secure his own personal power. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.
The job of a capitalist is to serve consumers and society efficiently. If he fails at that task, customers leave, and he is eliminated by competition.
The job of a politician is to secure power, influence, and reelection. If he fails at that task, he is eliminated politically.
The capitalist has to provide something tangibly useful. Most consumers will NOT buy a promise. The consequences are immediate.
The politician needs only to promise something useful. Most voters will vote for promises. The consequences of failure can take decades to manifest, especially with a voter base easily persuaded by excuses.
This 180-degree thinking is precisely why the USA is in decline, along with most of Europe.
Minimum wage should be zero. And not a penny more.
We tried that, the result was a society where a handful of business owners lived a life of luxury while everyone else starved working for Pennies.
Assuming you are not cherry-picking a brief moment in USA history where the workforce was transitioning from agricultural skills to industrial manufacturing skills, leading to a huge surplus of unskilled labor, at a time when the population of the USA was also being artificially increased with low-skilled immigrants adding to the workforce. Assuming you were not deliberately ignoring a temporary correction in the free market as the supply of workers and the demand for workers eventually stabilized...
Your argument oversimplifies history by assuming poverty was caused mainly by the absence of minimum wage laws rather than by the fact that humanity across the globe itself was dramatically less productive and less wealthy in those earlier eras. People were not poor in the 1800s because there was no minimum wage; they were poor because industrial output, technology, medicine, and living standards were far lower overall. Capital allocation was scarce. Productivity was tuned and tied to farming. The undisputable fact remains: wages are driven by productivity, labor demand, and competition for workers, not by government mandates and fiat. In fact, forcing wages artificially above the productive value of certain labor always reduces hiring opportunities for low-skill and inexperienced workers. Capitalism, despite its flaws, being the worst system out there except for all the others, including economic fascism, objectively increased long-term living standards massively, increased life expectancy, increased food production, increased consumer access, and increased technological progress over time. The real question is not whether greed exists, but which system of incentives produces more prosperity and upward mobility overall for all waged labor.
During the shift from agricultural economies to industrial factory work, huge numbers of workers entered cities with little formal industrial training. ANd yes, employers did hire them at low wages initially because their productivity in factory systems was still risky and uncertain, and those skills had to be developed on the job. But over time, while those workers gained experience, specialization, and familiarity with industrial processes, we know that their productivity and wages naturally rose together. Now, I am not saying that those historical labor conditions were good or fair, but the simplistic narrative that low wages alone caused industrial poverty ignores the realities of a transitioning economy. Many people forget that the USA and other countries were undergoing a massive economic and technological transition where the workforce itself was still developing the skills required for higher-productivity labor. Below market wages were absolutely necessary to provide farmers fresh off the fields a chance at gaining valuable productivity skills.
If you're going to argue that minimum wage policies are primarily a productivity incentive, I can easily write another page-long rebuttal explaining why artificially raising the cost of low-skill labor incentivizes automation, workforce reduction, reduced hiring of inexperienced workers, a reduction in the rate at which the general force gains on the job skills, and consolidation toward larger firms that can absorb the artificial costs much more easily than small businesses.
The job of the individual is to look out for the individual's best interest; the job of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole
Wrong, the job of a capitalist is to look after the interests of the consumers, or society. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.
The job of a politician is to look after himself and secure his own personal power. If he fails in this task, he is eliminated.
The job of a capitalist is to serve consumers and society efficiently. If he fails at that task, customers leave, and he is eliminated by competition.
The job of a politician is to secure power, influence, and reelection. If he fails at that task, he is eliminated politically.
This 180-degree thinking is precisely why the USA is in decline, along with most of Europe.
Here is the truth about gun control. Please educate yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhI8o9m7BK0
Nonsense. The best way to increase wages [minimum, or otherwise, I don't care] is to begin educating kids in elementary school about ambition, planning, and execution. The subject matter of these three characteristics does not really matter, and the income will take care of itself. Be ambitious about what interests a person, make a plan to become the best educated about that subject, and execute the plan. Education does not necessarily mean only an elementary, secondary, and college sequence. What ever the best education is for a particular subject, pursue that course. No later than beginning high school, learn the basics of handling money with those same 3 principles; how to be ambitious in its earning, plan how to accomplish what is needed, and work the plan. Money is a byproduct of this pursuit, not really the primary goal. Be among the best in what one does, expect a commensurate income.
Oh, so that's how you solve the problem of unproductive poor people?
Kamala was indeed, a bad idea.
This is what I am saying. He is supposed to be a king, and people can't pay their taxes with an IOU to the IRS.
He should have plenty of money, just like all politicians do.
NYC took out the largest can they could find and found the largest shoe, and kicked it as far as they could.
New York City balanced its budget the way someone balances a collapsing bookshelf by shoving the mess into the next room and closing the door. Instead of solving the underlying fiscal problems, the city relied heavily on deferred pension obligations, temporary state assistance, optimistic future revenue assumptions (as if revenue is gonna come back soon after the ongoing exodus of wealth generators), and other short-term financial maneuvers that mostly push today’s fiscal pain into tomorrow’s budget. Those liabilities do not magically disappear; they continue growing while future administrations and taxpayers inherit larger obligations with less flexibility. The city effectively grabbed the largest can it could find, put on the largest shoe imaginable, and launched the problem as far down the road as possible, and hoped economic growth and future political leaders can magically deal with these expenses later. All of this while also waging a social war on wealth generation. The politics of free lunch eventually turn into a soggy sandwich nobody asked for, and everyone eventually pays for.
Good Luck.
Foster Homes.
There is no amount of direct welfare that can sustain unproductive people.
The solution to the problem of unproductive people is obvious.
I thought Trump was a king, according to the press.
Can't he just skim off the top like most American representatives?
Or even Somali representatives?
It means right wing authoritarians using force to enforce undemocratic decrees.
So what? That just means your country is all right-wing for using the government to manipulate the privately owned economy. Even your Democrat party is right-wing now. There are no "liberals" in the USA anymore, the ones who promote freedom from state control.
By classical liberal standards, both parties support a lot of state intervention in the economy.
Unrefutable. Liberalism died long ago, and it was the Democrats who killed it. Right around the time of the rise of global fascism.
Political labels are like hookers; they are cheap and predictable. But authoritarianism has no need of any special label.
You manipulate privately owned businesses; you got that from Mussolini.
https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate-state
Here are some typical Mussolini quotes from original documents:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State–a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values–interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)
Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)
Yet if anyone cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)
“It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!… I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism.” (p. 24)
Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)
The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).
Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.
The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)
The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)
Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers.
He has a moral right to pay nobody anything, employ nobody, create nothing, retire, and laugh at you all day long.
Elon will never be your bitch.
Minimum wage should be zero. And not a penny more.
Fascist governments have no moral right to prohibit free association of contracted agreements between two willing people.
2 wolves and a sheep. I'm pretty sure it's why the USA is deliberately a constitutional republic, not a social democracy.
There exists a minority: the productive people and firms who graze and create. In this tale, we will call this group the "sheep." The wolves in this story organize and vote. Everyone calls it democracy, and the language of fairness sounds reassuring. The wolves proudly introduce “democratic socialism,” and promise kinder outcomes without changing the basic arithmetic of democracy. If the rules allow it, a majority can decide how much of the sheep’s output gets redirected. The names change; but the incentives don’t.
Whether or not this story turns into a predatory tale depends on constraints. Where there are hard limits such as clear property rights, independent courts, budgets that have to balance, rules that are difficult to rewrite, solid constitutions, well, in those lands, the menu is mostly off the ballot. Where those limits are softer, control of government becomes a coveted prize, where politics organizes around access to that prize instead of providing solutions.
You can see this tale play out in New York City. There’s a small group of sheep, high earners, investors, and firms who also bear a big share of the costs. They know they are on the menu, but treat it as a natural state of being a sheep. The “wolves” in this story aren’t really villains; they’re coalitions using the rules available to them. But the “sheep” aren’t exactly helpless; they’re productive and have the means to flee the pasture.
And when the sheep start to drift out of the pasture, something slowly changes. Over time, there are fewer sheep to crop the grass and fertilize it. At first, nothing seems different. The votes still happen, the rules still stand, the language still sounds right, the wolves are fed. But the pasture stops renewing itself. Less grazing, less growth, less to go around. What looked like a stable system quietly thins out. And by the time the wolves ask where all the dinner went, why the meadow looks like a garbage dump, it's already too late.
Turns out the problem was never really how to divide the harvest through democratic socialism.
It was forgetting who made it grow in the first place.
Why do you want a fascist government in charge of the private energy industry?
But conservatives are wrong that the government shouldn't have a hand in transitioning.
So they aren't really fascists? And on top of that, they are wrong for not being fascists?
It's literally Google. You can't sue libraries for having how-to manuals, even on guns. Accessory to murder is even more outlandish.
They can do worse than move. They can retire. Then you can relax with no rich people around you.
Enjoy a state without rich people. Hope you wake up refreshed and stress-free.
That's like saying an encyclopedia could be charged with assisting with a crime.
There were about 10 bipartisan bills passed under Trump's first term.
The current term has zero bipartisan bills passed.
I suppose that's what Jeffries meant by "Maximum Warfare"
Make sure to ask "nicely"
Trump is advising all the American churches that they have to be prepared for that because it can be disruptive for them,
This might be the real reason for disarming Iran. They don't want Iran to nuke the Aliens for blasphemy. Jews are okay, though.
AOC's "new" rhetoric started with Obama's "you didn't build that" doctrine.
It's just a recognition of the tragically weakened property rights today in America.
and when looking at social justice, that all is still significant
Social justice is just a cleaner way to justify Communism and justify the eventual elimination of property rights.
It's an easier sell than 100 million+ dead corpses or memes of Cuba on TikTok.
