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 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.
Once again, these concepts aren’t utopian, the literal main focus of these things is pragmatism and morality. These things are VERY much achievable, even in the revoltingly authoritarian age of the Soviet Union, they made that kind of thing work, with little to no unemployment, and poverty almost entirely gone. For their population, it came at a cost while the world was attempting to break it at EVERY. SINGLE. TURN. A large amount of that was reasonable, but the fact that they lasted so long says something: it’s not an impossible task to eliminate poverty. Suffering, death, famine, and a sadness aren’t the targets, though it would ease those issues to fix what… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
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"?
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
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.