And lets us not mention the century long war on labor unions. Still ongoing as far as legal to do that.
Yes, this is part of the “recovery” argument. When Companies felt it was acceptable to rip people off if you could instead of paying them for what they contributed.
And that’s an issue that I know some will argue. “If I *can* rip them off, I *should* rip them off, because failing to rip them off when I could have, is failing to maximize my money, which is - immoral, right?”
The idea that being just and paying people commensurate with whatt they provided to you is a failing, somehow. “I realize you gave me $5 in value, but if I can bully you into letting me pay only $3, I haven’t done anything wrong, yah? I haven’t harmed society and left you needing public care that you would not have needed if I paid you for the value you gave me. I mean a society where I can pressure you into giving me your lunch money is a good society, right?”
Oddly enough, I agree with at least a couple of the points made by just about everyone on this thread...but let me explain why I love the above post made by Rhea. About 10 years ago, when I was still working, one of the aides told me that she was embarrassed to be receiving SNAP. She saw it as welfare and she hated having to depend on the government. She was a hard working, full time employee and a single mom with just one son. I snapped and told her that she should not feel that way because the truth was that her receiving SNAP was welfare for her employer, who by the way, overworked and underpaid her employees. I told the aide, who was one of the few workers who stayed there for years, that if the owner had paid her a decent wage and offered her any decent benefits, she wouldn't need any help from the government, so in her case, SNAP was welfare for the owners. In fact, at least up until recently, most workers who received any government aide received it because their employers were too cheap or greedy to pay them what they deserved.
The owners of this small assistive living facility where I did part time contract work for quite a few years before retiring, lived a rather extravagant life style. Not extravagant like the CEO of a large corporation, but extravagant compared to the residents of a small town where there was a lot of poverty. They traveled, rented new cars every year, always charged to the business etc., while their employees often depended on programs like SNAP or the EIC to survive. So, don't tell me those programs aren't often welfare for business. Imo, greed is a huge part of the problem these days, but we can discuss that later.
Let me add one more thing. Some of you seem to think that CEOs and/or corporations shouldn't have to pay much taxes. Well, who depends on the infrastructure as much as large corporations? Where would Amazon be if not for roads, air travel and the Internet, for an example? Should only the little guy be responsible for paying for those things? I have a friend who barely made 40 K last year, yet she paid over 4 K in taxes. That's more than Trump and many billionaires pay in taxes due to all their special tax breaks. Even if they do pay more, the percentage is often lower than what my friend pays. Many of them have a lot of influence in government. Yes. We have just about become a corpocracy.
Don't get me wrong. I support well regulated capitalism, with progressive taxation and strong enforcement, but we no longer have that these days. Socialism may have worked well when we were hunter gatherers, but things changed drastically after the agricultural revolution, so imo, those days are over, and only an idealist thinks socialism has any chance of working as humans aren't exactly selfless individuals who want to share their wealth. Now, we have mostly crooked corporations, often run by crooks who have a large influence on politicians, who love their power more than anything.
