[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You will send you a NDA.

I don’t know who taught you how to use the Jedi mind trick, but I think you’ve been scammed.

"Every company shouldn't be unioned"
- that is correct,

You know you’re in quicksand in a message board debate when you feel the need blatantly misquote someone.

most companies don't and don't need to be.

Actually no companies unionize, their employees do.

We’ll wait that might not be completely fair, business owners do unionize but up here they call them things like the CFIB. I guess they saw a benefit to collective action, I wonder where they could have gotten that idea from.

It seems like you might not have much experience in the private sector to recognize that 19th- and 20th-century working norms no longer apply, especially in developed nations.

I’ve been in the workforce for about a quarter century at this point and have only ever worked in the private sector. Try again.

Of course, nothing is black and white, but there are many professions where workers have significant leverage to advance their careers and increase their salaries. This isn’t just theory—it ultimately depends on what you make of it.

No one ever said that there were no professions that have leverage, at the same time just because you have some leverage doesn’t mean you can’t put yourself into a position where you have more. This isn’t just theory—it ultimately depends on what you make of it.

It ties back to your point about finiteness—we have a finite number of jobs and a finite number of ideas. Let’s focus on ideas: not only is there a limited number of them, but there’s also a finite number of people capable of generating and executing them. Given that, capital is best placed in the hands of those who can create something beneficial for the majority.

I guess what you’re saying is that giving workers more money will create more people capable of generating wealth who weren’t just born into money. You know, the ones who don’t actually have any proven ability to generate anything with the resources they have. I agree with that.

Some might call this trickle-down economics,

If by some you mean basically everyone then yes I would agree with your assessment.

which I would prefer over a bottom-up approach, which seems to align with your preference.

You’re entitled to your opinion even if all data on the matter suggests that your position isn’t justifiable.

Ultimately, capital should go to someone with a good idea, rather than someone likely to waste it on frivolous things like booze and cigarettes. (ha ha)

Here come the stereotypes, never a good sign when you have to rely on those to make an argument. I didn’t know business owners didn’t drink or smoke or spend money on frivolous things. I’ll be sure to bring it up with Mr bezos the next time he invites me to join him for non-alcoholic beverages on his yacht that has a second yacht built into it.

And that is exactly how the system is setup now and it works. It much more than tax breaks for the rich, that a ####ing genric statement you learn from the Robert Reich/Bernie Sanders/AOC/Liz Warren/NDP school of economics, nobody in the know takes those people seriously.

It works well for a very small segment of the population. I don’t know what tax breaks have to do with employees being able to unionize or why you would bring it into the discussion. Other than to suggest that you seem to be struggling to get a reasonable argument across.

Most people perform at their best when they have an incentive to motivate them.

You mean an incentive like having a job that pays well that a worker would want to keep as opposed to minimum/low wage jobs that they can easily find another one of and therefore don’t have incentive to do more than the bare minimum at?

”Why not take care of those people while they’re in the queue?”

Because that risks disincentivizing them. The realization that you need to be “taken care of” should be enough to motivate you. If it’s not, well, there’s always a street corner you can hang out on.

This can all just as easily be applied to the investors that you’re trying to coddle. Kind of a hypocritical position to take frankly.

I’m enjoying this discussion but if you want to keep playing this game I think you’d be best served by finding a bigger barrel to swim in little fishy. You’re making it too easy for me and that’s probably driving some posters nuts.