You spin jolly yarn. Permit me to mock you gingerly in my usual passive/aggressive manner
Nah, but seriously. If you think that the majority of people in the world have some kind of actual choice in where they work and have some kind of equal opportunity to gain education then you live in a much nicer place than me (I live in Detroit.)
This is a stereotypical Marxist bait-and-switch. We were talking about Wal-Mart employees, not "the majority of people in the world". If you wish to rephrase your comment in a way that is not intellectually dishonest, you may. That's one.
SuburbanThug wrote:And if you think that the head CEO of Wal-Mart making 16,000 dollars an hour while paying his full time employees 7 dollars an hour and forcing the taxpayer to subsidize his payroll is somehow morally defensible I doubt there's even any common ground for us to have a sensible conversation about how I really feel.
Ah yes, another Marxist stereotype. Where logic fails, use feelings, we must. The points I raised in my previous post do not concern "unjust" wage-gaps, but rather the Marxist notion that the term "slavery" should be applied to those who are clearly free, albeit poor. The use of the word slavery is just another appeal to emotions. That's two.
SuburbanThug wrote:There was actually a time when mainstream economists spoke out against this kind of immorality in business practice.
There was also a time when blacks were genuine slaves and the Targaryens ruled Middle-Earth. (Two-and-a-half).
SuburbanThug wrote:In my country (and possibly your own [the Bank of Switzerland?]) the money is minted by a private banking organization, The Federal Reserve.
Indeed. In my village, we call this institution la BNS, or Banque National Suisse. It's primary mandate includes pepperminting candy-corns and hoarding Nazi gold. (Random nonsense).
It's basically those folks that control how much money we're going to make, not us. I'm not a slave. But I have at times been a wage slave meaning that to quit my job I would be risking my life and if I were to keep it I'd still be looked upon as a lower functioning human being and barely able to take care of my own self let alone a family.
I understand your plight, as I also have to work for a living. Back in the Targaryen days, of course, nobody had to work to survive. Food simply was
and everybody was happy. That's three.
SuburbanThug wrote:Yet my employer needed me in order to maintain his profits so why should I bear this stigma and fear for the quality of my life? If the minimum wage in this country had been increased for inflation it would be three times higher than it is now and people earning it would still be living with their heads just above the poverty line.
And yet you signed that contract. It sounds like you should take up your complaint with the party responsible for the inflation (the Fed), rather than the company that was kind enough to offer you a job and keep you from starvation. Four.
SuburbanThug wrote:Personally I would love to see the kind of socialist utopia depicted in, say, Star Trek...
Adam Smith would agree with you. If I recall my economics lessons correctly, he theorised that "^ this, plus I'd do Spock". Point five.
SuburbanThug wrote:...but would really settle for free market capitalism and democracy which were pretty much completely destroyed by 2002 and replaced with a dominant capital market based on military industry and banking.
Three possibilities, either you haven't understood what is meant by "free market capitalism", or you haven't understood what is meant by "democracy", or you are trolling. Democracy is by definition the destruction of the free market, as a market governed by the *cough* right
to vote can no longer function freely. Six. And that's a big one.
SuburbanThug wrote:I like your music by the way.
Appreciated, thank you.