Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[TruthNotBS]

So what? If someone wants to work for less that what you think is minimal, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

It was already explained to you why. The government shouldn't have to subsidize your workforce, because you're a cheap leech, a greedy parasite, living off of other people's labor, which you don't want to adequately compensate. Workers need food, housing..etc. If you're not paying a living wage, then the taxpayer has to cover the cost of that worker's expenses. No, you should as their employer. Are you going to make a bit less profit? Yes, but that's the cost of doing business. If you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, then go get a job. You shouldn't be in business.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

First of all, I don't have to go anywhere. I'm an American, so you leave. How about that? All of you brainwashed bootlickers, who grovel at the feet of your capitalist masters, should leave my country, right now. See how easy that was? Now that I got that out of the way. Before anyone moves to the DPRK or "North Korea", lift the economic embargo. Allow North Korea to function internationally, without freezing its assets or threatening countries around the world with fines and sanctions if they trade with the DPRK.

socialist are worthless moochers

 

[TruthNotBS]

socialist are worthless moochers

You're a parasite living off of your employee's labor.

 

[dblack]

It was already explained to you why. The government shouldn't have to subsidize your workforce

You see employees as slaves, and you want the government to make employers take good care of their slaves. But they're not slaves. They're thinking people who might not agree with your bullshit. Who might be willing to work for less. That's their decision to make. Not government stooges.

 

[WEATHER53]

They can't get away without paying their workers because no one would work for them. It has nothing do your precious regulations.

Seriously, would you work without pay? Do you know anyone who would? Are you really this dim, or is this just what the propaganda guidelines tell you to say?

People without jobs, income, savings or possessions chirping about how they feel it should be done
Lib101

 

[dblack]

People without jobs, income, savings or possessions chirping about how they feel it should be done
Lib101

It's just a bunch of excuses from people who know better. They're trying to hoodwink the "masses" into replacing free trade with state controlled trade.

I see it following the same progression as theocracy. It took us centuries to get it through our heads that giving government power over religion was a really bad idea. We're in the midst of learning that same lesson with regard to trade. If government controls labor and resources, they control you.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Kamala LIES like Joe, to fit the moment....

 

[TruthNotBS]

You see employees as slaves, and you want the government to make employers take good care of their slaves. But they're not slaves. They're thinking people who might not agree with your bullshit. Who might be willing to work for less. That's their decision to make. Not government stooges.

Ironically, you're the one who sees your employees as mere commodities to be exploited like machinery or slaves, that don't need to eat or have a roof over their heads. You will shamelessly profit off of them at the expense of the community that has to subsidize your employees with food stamps and rental assistance..etc. The community or let's just say the taxpayers, have every right, through their government, to force you to pay your employees, no less than the minimum wage. If you don't like that, go get a job, you don't belong in business. Stop being a parasite.

 

[TruthNotBS]

People without jobs, income, savings or possessions chirping about how they feel it should be done
Lib101

In your fantasy world, I don't have an income or support myself. You're delusional.

 

[dblack]

Ironically, you're the one who sees your employees ...

First of all, I'm not an employer. Stop trying to make this personal.

But I've been an employee. Still am. And never have I been a slave. I could walk away any time I felt like it. And sometimes did.[/size]

 

[WEATHER53]

First of all, I'm not an employer. Stop trying to make this personal.

But I've been an employee. Still am. And never have I been a slave. I could walk away any time I felt like it. And sometimes did.[/size]

Work is not play
Lib loons want work to be play and get paid and be rich and bitch if not

 

[TruthNotBS]

First of all, I'm not an employer. Stop trying to make this personal.

But I've been an employee. Still am. And never have I been a slave. I could walk away any time I felt like it. And sometimes did.[/size]

Oh I know dblack, that you're a brainwashed, working-class drone, defending his master, in solidarity with the ruling class that exploits him like a slave, but I just play your little game. You defend capitalism as if you're a capitalist, so I'll just identify you as one. Economics and politics are personal, so if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If you're selling your life to a capitalist for several hours daily, you're a wage-slave, under the authority of your master. Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, calls capitalist employers, masters:

"What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations - Book I, Chapter VIII)

Your employer/exploiter is a master over you. As an employee under capitalism, the workplace is a totalitarian regime. You have no elections, essentially no power. You can leave and get another job (maybe), but you might lose your apartment and medical insurance, while you look for another job. If you keep jumping from one master (job) to another, eventually your work history on your resume is going to look like crap. No one will hire you if they see you're jumping from one master to another. You need to stay with one master, at least for a few years.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Work is not play
Lib loons want work to be play and get paid and be rich and bitch if not

That's what you want, since you're a capitalist leech parasite, living off of other people's labor.

 

[WEATHER53]

That's what you want, since you're a capitalist leech parasite, living off of other people's labor.

Thank you for admitting that you feel work is to provide you emotional needs while being unhappy about the financial rewards. You demand greater financial reward with little to no effort.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He does not sound like any black men I know. He DOES sound A LOT like my white liberal profs.

This is how you know someone hasn't really gone to college.

This is how someone who has heard about college on right wing media talks.

 

[dblack]

Oh I know dblack, that you're a brainwashed, working-class drone, defending his master, in solidarity with the ruling class that exploits him like a slave, but I just play your little game. You defend capitalism as if you're a capitalist, so I'll just identify you as one. Economics and politics are personal, so if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If you're selling your life to a capitalist for several hours daily, you're a wage-slave, under the authority of your master. Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, calls capitalist employers, masters:

"What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations - Book I, Chapter VIII)

Your employer/exploiter is a master over you. As an employee under capitalism, the workplace is a totalitarian regime. You have no elections, essentially no power. You can leave and get another job (maybe), but you might lose your apartment and medical insurance, while you look for another job. If you keep jumping from one master (job) to another, eventually your work history on your resume is going to look like crap. No one will hire you if they see you're jumping from one master to another. You need to stay with one master, at least for a few years.

tl;dr

But I guess it counts toward your qouta.

 

[TruthNotBS]

tl;dr

But I guess it counts toward your qouta.

Gobbledygook. You're now speaking even more gibberish.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Thank you for admitting that you feel work is to provide you emotional needs while being unhappy about the financial rewards. You demand greater financial reward with little to no effort.

That perfectly describes you as a capitalist parasite employer (exploiter), enriching himself off of other people's labor. Bravo for the clear definition of who you are as a capitalist leech.

 

[dblack]

Gobbledygook. You're now speaking even more gibberish.

Of course, of course.

Apart from the gratuitous insults, it seemed your last post continued with the ridiculous insistence that employment is slavery. It might be instructive, if you could do a bit of time traveling, for you to live the life of an actual slave, in the South in the 1820's. Live in chains for a few years. You think your perspective might change?

But I get it. "Slavery" is provocative, and plays well with populist victim-hood. And socialism IS a populist movement, which means the name of the game is manipulating stupid people. And with regard to that, I can only say you've picked a good fishing hole.