Converation thread

The government has no right to say how many hours a person should or should not work.

You are free to work more or less. This establishes a standard to base things off of, just like how 40 is the existing standard

There shouldn’t be a standard or overtime or minimum wage. Let me and an employee or employer talk and agree on terms then go from there. It’s not rocket science.

The God-given right to property includes paying your workers, who voluntarily agreed to work for you, what you want, and operating your business as you want. Government's job is to protect that right, not destroy it.

The workers work for people because they’ll starve if they don’t. That’s not voluntary, that’s by necessity for survival. If they had the ability to work for themselves or live without work, then they’d be doing another job voluntarily, but that’s not what capitalist society is. Government serves as a way to make sure that a worker gets paid a fairer wage, and isn’t exploited worse than they already are, the exact same way government makes safety regulations for workplaces. Minimum wage reduces the amount of workers who could be paid unfairly, establishing a floor minimum to survive, and letting workers and employers negotiate additional wages if necessary. That’s far fairer overall

The workers work for people because they’ll starve if they don’t. That’s not voluntary, that’s by necessity for survival.

It is 100% voluntary. Survival is just what incentives workers to voluntarily make that decision – the notion that that's the motive behind the transaction does not change the fact that it is still voluntary. They can chose to shrivel up and die, if they want. That option is open to them. Or they could choose to work somewhere else. But instead, they made the smart decision by choosing to work for someone else – and they would dese…  Read morervedly starve if they refused to do any work at all. There is nothing you can do to change the fact that no one is going to feed himself or his family by sitting there watching TikTok all day. Sorry, but it's impossible.

Under legal circumstances, we call that economic duress, and when the job market is intentionally attacked by businesses who are far less likely to actually NEGOTIATE as much as simply demand lowering their wages, that’s considered fine, though it fits the definition perfectly. Consent requires a neutral result if you refuse something, being starved is a negative result as a response to refusing to work in an unfair work environment. The very least that can be done is a floor wage that makes sure a bare minimum to actually be guaranteed survival in the workplace is necessary, no matter…  Read more the sporadic cost of jobs, due to the fact that the minimum wage is about matching what can be afforded. I also never said someone survives by doing nothing, even Lenin agreed with that, and so do I, but a bit of welfare to make sure people stay afloat for long enough to FIND work, or get basic needs met if they cant, is something I’m in favor of. I view the economic duress of our economy to be a massive problem, because though I think people should remain working, I do think that lower paying jobs, whether self-made or not (if they produce value), should be propped up enough in the economy to survive, as they could possibly create very valuable jobs, or create the environment necessary for some to make discoveries they needed for our benefit.

Why was the poverty rate five times higher in the USSR than the United States, then, if it worked so wonderfully? Is that what you call "poverty almost gone"?

Poverty in the form of lacking basic needs had DISAPPEARED, though many jobs couldn’t supply a large amount of wants, their quality of life was high for a long time. What we call poverty is different than theirs, they had the same levels we did in the early 1900s for a long time due to their isolation from global markets, but what the UN would consider poverty didn’t EXIST in that nation. It was far from perfect, but the USSR was a hardy nation that teaches the world a lot about what’s possible, despite its revolting flaws.