this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
138 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13446 readers
1061 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
diversity is when more borger places and the more borger places the more diverser it is
pay a living wage or sell to someone who can. ideally the state.
Right. I think you're missing my point. Unfortunately we dont live under socialism.
agitating for better workers' comp is how we get there. protecting smol bean business owner profits solves nothing.
But is that what we're doing? Having business owner foot the bill for workers comp is more of the same. We do that already and the actual solution is to have the state perform that function. This solution just cuts out people that cant afford the new regulation. Leaving the large player who can afford it. Furthering wealth disparity.
the business owner risks proletarianizing -- oh no. anyway,
Really??? Im trying to understand and you're not being persuasive. Saying you dont care about someone losing their income just comes off as cruel.
Should we regulate it so that only McDonald's afford to run a restaurant? Should benefits be based on employment?
You're acting like under our system this is a benevolent outcome and there couldn't be a downside.
The downside: Small business owners can no longer force employees to work for poverty wages
The upside: the poorest workers in California get a living wage
Why should we care about a few small business owners who can't afford to not exploit their employees? And why should they be prioritized over the workers?
the business owner can get a job just like his workers. ensuring a capitalist can remain a capitalist is not high on my list of priorities.