I never block anyone, even hypocritical posters who post TO me, but have blocked me.
But its nice to know you've flip-flopped on how wonderful Hillery is.
During the election, high off the gas-lighting MSDNC had given you, you were singing hosannas in her honor.
While America did industrialize under laissez-faire economics, other nations in Europe managed to industrialize just fine under a mixed market.
Russia wasn't socialist during the industrial revolution.
They'd continue to be backwards under a laissez-faire economy.
If they had enough power, maybe they could. However you yourself have argued that they are already too powerful and need to be weakened.
Additionally, safety would be extremely uneven. Some companies with strong unions would have good safety standards. Other companies with weaker or more corrupt unions would have shitty safety standards. People would still die.
Depends on the industry. If it is a computer programmer, expensive. If it is a factory worker, it is dirt cheap. That is why factories treated their workers as expendable until the government passed labor laws.
True, it was explosive growth that couldn't be sustained. But so is lassez faire capitalism. The massive problems it causes leads to death, recessions and worker unrest.
I'm not sure. A hell of alot of people died in america because of capitalism.
That very much depends on what that minimum is. In practice what that meant is that if a few dozen poor people burn to death the government just looked the other way.
correct, I am in favor of going back to the sort of taxation levels that made america great. It is only in the last few decades that tax levels on the rich have dropped through the floor.
The US government and the people of america would pay much, much more.
Toyota doesn't have unions in their US factories, which is precisely why they kick GM's ass in sales, car quality, and profits.
The point is that they would be uneven- not all companies are the same. Not sure how many workers you could attract with super deadly work environments.
It would depend on what type of work that worker is doing. If they are counting paper clips, maybe they could afford to let them die. If they are operating million-dollar machinery, they would generally want to keep someone who is competent and efficient.
Well, an issue was that there were large monopolies and corruption during that time as well. So, barring those, the industrial revolution would have had less death and worker unrest. How do you figure laissez-faire capitalism leads to recessions?
Well, let me tell you exact how things went. So, how did he fuel this industrialization? Was it natural, like with market forces, and everything adjusted efficiently? Or did central planning fail once again?
They also used prisoners to do a lot of the dangerous labor. Go Russia! Even worse working conditions than heartless capitalists!
Well, I don't see anything wrong with imposing very large fines if a worker dies because of EMPLOYER negligence. It should be up to the company, who knows their operations better, to decide what is safe, rather than the government who has no idea how every single different company is structured.
When do you believe America was great? I'd like to explore that.
The US government and the people of america would pay much, much more.More than $2 trillion? Doubtful.
Yes it does. We are in an economic boom as of now
We aren't in a Great Depression right now so his policies of extreme regulation won't work.
Blame the liberals for abusing his policies and worsening the middle class.
FDR helped the middle class, the Liberals have ruined it and Bernie will do the same thing.
How is Trump "bad"? Please tell me you don't think the economy would have been better under Hillery? Or that she would have dealt with Iran better. Or the our borders would not be wide open under her presidency?Not personally liking Trump does not mean Trump is a bad president. Where is the logic behind this sentiment??
she was miles ahead of Trump
in terms of being an effective politician and leader,
In what concrete way?
Hillery was Sec of state! How much progress did she make with North Korea? China? Iran? Mexico? Israel? Saudi Arabia? How were our borders while she was in office? How was the economy?
You dodged every question in my post, so I will assume you didn't want to answer them.But I will suspect you knew answering them honestly would contradict your claim that she was better.
They were very much relevant to the electorate in 2016."Would have" questions aren't relevant when discussing who was the better candidate at election time.
Toyota can get away with treating their employees worse. You're right that this kind of union busting gives them an advantage. We should use the law to prevent that.
If your options are to work in an unsafe environment or your family starves, you will do what you have to do. All you have to do is look at the industrial revolution. Workers suffered and died in large numbers to try to feed their families. If every company cuts safety corners to save money, then workers get no choices.
Why? Expensive machinery is more and more designed to be idiot proof. You can teach someone to run it in a day or 2. If they get maimed or killed it isn't very expensive to replace them. Alot cheaper than it is to install expensive safety equipment and do regular safety checks on the machinery.
Unrestricted greed leads to a boom and bust cycle. Look at the 2008 recession. Banks were able to make ridiculous money making terrible bets. All the banks got in on it because the profit margins were crazy high. When those bets eventually went bad they all lost huge amounts of money and triggered a massive recession. Some government regulations could have prevented the banks from making those ridiculous bets. They would have bitched and moaned about how government regulations were costing them money, but a massive financial crisis would have been avoided and everyone would have saved a TON of money.
central planning lead to a massive increase in industrial capacity due to central planning. This arguably gave them the ability to win WW2 while america was dicking around. There was a significant human cost to this process. From that point of view it was a failure. From a purely industrial point of view it was a huge success.
America is still using prisoners for cheap or free labor. Tell me again about how evil russia is for doing this 100 years ago....
That's exactly the problem. If the employer gets to decide what is safe and what is not, then literally nothing is negligence. If they are setting the rules, then whatever they decide to do is the right thing to do. And since companies love saving money, they would cut down of safety equipment, reduce checks of the machinery etc leading to the unnecessary death and dismemberment of their employee.
But it would significantly increase the number of employees being maimed or killed. The company doesn't care about that, they can just replace them and make more money. But the worker is now crippled. They can't work any more. The government has to pay them disability and/or unemployment for the rest of their life. So the company is happy because they save alot of money and they can offset the costs associated to the accidents to the government. For the company it is a big win, for society and the government it is a massive loss. Not to mention the people who have gotten killed or crippled and the pain and suffering to them and their families.
Ok, you should definitely tell foreign investors that if they want to fire an incompetent employee, that won't be possible because the union will sue them.
You should also let them know that they can't do anything to discourage unionizing and pay them whatever they want and promise pensions they will never be able to afford. If they don't, they can just take millions in losses per day.
Are you assuming that people cannot move? 6.8 million job openings, and you are assuming they will have one choice of job or starve?
Wait a minute. This machinery is IDIOT PROOF, yet it likely to kill many workers who will then be replaced (despite the fact that we have millions of more jobs than people?!?!?). Give me a break.
Ok, sure, I'm fine with regulating leveraged loans. No one is arguing for "unrestricted greed". Trump has cut regulations, but at the same time, he is passing thousands of new ones.
Central planning works.... for a very limited amount of time. Once you run out of preexisting wealth or resources shift values unfavorably, they get screwed very quick.
First off, tell me how making license plates is the same as "work in Siberia with shoddy housing and just enough food to not starve to death". Also, they still use penal labor, so... nice try.
Legally speaking, negligence is failure to use proper care. If employees are getting injured or killed from no fault of their own, the employer would arguably not be using proper care.
Have you ever discussed how any of this actually works with someone from management? You think you can just be careless enough to let someone die and not get a shit storm?
Employees make a lot more money suing employers for negligence than they do with workers compensation.
People are not just expendable.
There is a huge demand for workers and you think they can just afford to kill people off and not suffer consequences.
Ok, you should definitely tell foreign investors that if they want to fire an incompetent employee, that won't be possible because the union will sue them.i never said that was a good thing. You are straw manning me.You should also let them know that they can't do anything to discourage unionizing and pay them whatever they want and promise pensions they will never be able to afford. If they don't, they can just take millions in losses per day.absolutely we should do that. No company should have the power to prevent their employees unionizing.
most americans can't afford even a reasonably small unexpected expense without going into debt. Most americans cannot afford to leave their job without another one already lined up. This leaves them trapped. Also, without labor laws to enforce safety standards, most companies would reduce safety. So if all companies are unsafe, what exactly would their options be?
Wait a minute. This machinery is IDIOT PROOF, yet it likely to kill many workers who will then be replaced (despite the fact that we have millions of more jobs than people?!?!?). Give me a break.umm yes. What exactly is your objection to those facts?
you are arguing that regulations are bad. I am arguing that they are good. You are advocating for heavily reducing the restrictions on avarice. That avarice pretty much always results in misery and death for the working class.
no one is advocating for a centrally planned economy.
so america and russia are equally exploitative of the weak and powerless.
if the law says the employer doesn't have to take any safety precautions, then if an employee gets hurt the employer can honestly say they took all the precautions necessary. The employee will just be screwed.
of course there would be. Because the law requires employers to protect their workers. It has for decades. Do you think there was a shit storm when am employee got killed in say the 1920's. There wasn't because it was just normal. If we repealed regulations, things would start sliding back in that direction.
Because the law says the employer needs to protect their workers. If the employer doesn't do that, they get sued. If the law says the employer doesn't have to do that, then the employer would win the lawsuit.
People might be upset for a little while. But in a matter of days or weeks something would happen that would distract them and everyone forgets all about it. It happens all the time.
While you didn't argue for it directly, you did so indirectly. That is what unions do- they offer job security. That means that incompetent people who don't do a very good job cannot be fired, and I have a problem with that, which is why I think unions should be limited.
Perhaps you think the benefits outweigh the cons, but that is still a very real problem.
I want a world in which employers and employees are on an even negotiating ground. You seem to want employers to be slaves to employees and must give what the workers want or risk going out of business. Not really a strawman because it just happened and you want to give them even more power.
Why are you assuming that all companies will make their workplace less safe?
Yes, they want to reduce costs, but at the same time, they want the best workers.
You obtain the best workers by offering better incentives, such as better pay and workplace conditions.
Do you believe that people are entitled to be able to stay in one town and make plenty of money? Because that is the only alternative to "move to where the jobs are".
I mean, you just finished praising how centrally-planned Russia was super productive, but I suppose you didn't.
Well, do you think that American and Russian prisoners are equal?
We have rule of law here and we lock up murderers, sex offenders, etc. One group is less deserving of that pity, and I would even argue that productive prison labor could aid rehabilitation.
Case law and juries could determine a case-by-case basis on that rather than having tons of hard to understand and broad regulations. Negligence has typically always been defined through case law.
of course there would be. Because the law requires employers to protect their workers. It has for decades. Do you think there was a shit storm when am employee got killed in say the 1920's. There wasn't because it was just normal. If we repealed regulations, things would start sliding back in that direction.Well, unions began rioting and such, so I guess there was.
Well, employers have a duty of care to keep their workers safe.
I think it should work like this: there should be severe penalties and law suits if workers are injured or killed on the job of no/little fault of their own. It should be at the owner's discretion how they structure their workplace, but they should greatly fear consequences of not being safe.
I don't care for stupid OSHA standards that say a step must be a certain amount of inches long. Things like that are just ridiculous, the employer should be in charge of that.
People might be upset for a little while. But in a matter of days or weeks something would happen that would distract them and everyone forgets all about it. It happens all the time.They find out it happened. The company likely gets sued. The end.
Thank God they were.
lol you are taking one small downside of a union and trying to use that as an argument to dismantle unions.
That is why we need laws to strengthen unions.
not usually no. They want to maximize profit. If the best worker costs 50% more and earns them 20% more money, they will go for the cheaper employee. Higher skilled workers sometimes increase profit. But cheaper employees always save money.
no, they lock up much fewer of their people than america does.
I was responding to your comment about how america's laissez faire capitalism industrialized faster that russia. That was a lie. I was pointing out that was a lie. You wanted to pretend like laissez faire capitalism was a requirement for industrialization when that obviously isn't true.
And if all companies have shitty, unsafe worker places? then they don't have to worry about doing those things because it is literally not an option anywhere the employee could go.
Your boss wants to pay you as little as possible
America also locks people up for carrying around a small amount of marijuana or trying to actually enforce your rights to a cop.
It is always seen through the prism of labor laws though. If the law says you must make X safety precaution and the employer didn't do that, then that is negligence. If the law says the employer doesn't have to take any precautions at all and they chose to put in some minor safety precautions, then they have exceeded what was required of them. That wouldn't be seen as negligence.
But this allows the courts to have the exclusive ability to determine worker rights. If the courts decide the employee is always in the wrong, companies can do whatever they want to whoever they want. The 1 place that we the people have a voice in determining what the rules should be is the government. The judiciary was not intended to decide what rights people should have.
Actually studies have shown that even small changes in the high or length of stairs significantly increases the odds of people falling on the stairs and increasing injuries and deaths. Having a consistent high and length of stairs saves lives. There is no reason that an employer should need to determine what the right stair height is.
. But the government needs those working class people to vote for them and therefore has much more reason to protect those workers.
