Notices by AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)

@abuseofnotation

I mean....I support capitalism. So there's that.

@abuseofnotation

I don't think employers CAN meaningfully force workers back into the office. The best protection for the workers is alternative job options; a different employer can entice workers away from that employer by offering a better deal. It happens constantly.

@abuseofnotation

Largely, yes. For example, Henry Ford (yes, I know he's not perfect, never said he was) wanted to offer his workers high enough wages that they could afford his cars. He wasn't mandated to.

@abuseofnotation

You seem fond of giving two or three replies to every comment, even though they're all short enough to easily fit in a single comment. That tends to lead to broken conversations that are hard to follow. Any chance you can finish your thoughts before you click "reply"?

@abuseofnotation

A lot of laws that were put in place for labor protections were put in place for perfectly valid reasons. I never claimed that employer competition is and always has been a perfect bulwark against problems. That being said, many abuses have also been the result of regulation, not the cause of them nor cured by them.

@abuseofnotation

For example, take the very obvious fact that many jobs where people work 40 hours a week they could easily do in 30 or 20. While that's nowhere close to the same caliber of problem as plenty of others that have existed, it's still an issue. Why would anyone arrange things in such a way? Why pay to keep someone in the office for 40 hours if you could get the same work in 30?

@abuseofnotation

No, no, remote or local, it's irrelevant. Why would you pay someone to work for 40 hours when you could pay them for 30 and get the same quality and volume of work? When they would be willing to work harder for less time in order to have 10 more hours per week to themselves?

@abuseofnotation

Yes, you CAN. Why is it so rare? Why do so many people prefer to work at least 40 hours a week, if they can get the same work done in 30?

@abuseofnotation

So you think that employers are willing to pay 25% more on wages, one of their biggest expenses, so they can exercise some vague desire to have people around, doing no more or better work?

@abuseofnotation

Okay, so they're obviously not THAT profit-motivated; they're willing to pay a huge extra amount for some vague idea of "people are in my building".

Then why aren't they paying people to work for 50 hours a week? Or 60? Since extra time, even with no more productivity, is worth it to them, by your theory?

@abuseofnotation

My idea is that 40 hours is the legally mandated line for what constitutes "full time work".

Your theory revolves around the proposal that, for decades and across the entire nation, the vast majority of people are juuuuust desperate enough to work for 8 hours, but not 9! With essentially no variation between them.

And also that employers don't value having 25% higher profits with identical productivity.

@abuseofnotation

More than 8 absolutely is not illegal. You are clearly and plainly wrong about that.

@abuseofnotation

In which country is it ILLEGAL to work for more than 8 hours a day?

@abuseofnotation

Please drop me a line if you even come up with an actual answer in defense of your claims.

@kolev

Okay, so you wouldn't support me doing that. What if I hired someone ELSE to do it? I'll even tell them they're only allowed to rob a rich person.

@kolev

That's an entirely different claim to make.

You say you support "charity by force". Suppose I go out tonight with a gun and rob a random passerby on the street; I take the $500 in cash they have,. Then I go give it to the local soup kitchen. Would you support that? Is that justice?

@kolev

"Charity by force" is a contradiction in terms; "charity" implies a voluntary act.

@kolev

I never imagined you would be sorry for what you said. But the point is, you ascribe claims and positions to libertarians that we simply do not hold.

You're attacking a straw man. If you want to change what people think, it's a good first step to actually understand what they think.

@kolev

Well, you ascribe a lot to libertarians. For one, you seem to assert that we think that the rich "deserve every penny they get". I doubt you could find a libertarian anywhere that will say that; the rich are just as capable of fraud and theft as the poor are, in many ways more so. We don't support fraudulent ways of gaining wealth, whether used by the rich or the poor.

Like it or not, there is and can be only one #minimumwage. $0/hour.

It sure doesn't sound all that great to work for $10/hour. But if that's the level of productivity someone is at, is it really a good idea to condemn them to unemployment forever? Wouldn't it be better for them to be able to work and develop their skills?

Is it really better for someone to live entirely on charity/welfare forever than to live on a combination of that and a wage that can rise over time?