No i see nothing wrong with it. A business isn't just labor, it's risk and capital. Most business' operate with almost no wiggle-room. Most business are investments of someones entire life's worth of work. If Cherries dog grooming shack down the street goes under, her entire life's saving goes with it. Her minimum wage hair sweeper loses nothing but another job. That worker is guaranteed a check, but if that Dog groomer has a bad month she can't just not pay her employees, it comes out of her pocket whether or not she can afford it. None of the risk is on the worker if something goes wrong.
"If you see nothing wrong with that then you don't have a problem with socialism ;)
I think the rest of what you've written here is kind of bullshit though.
By having minimum wage as their only source of income, a worker is living a much riskier life than the business owner who employs them and reaps profits from their labour, and at worst what the business owner is risking is having to work a minimum wage job themself.
Also, the opportunity to start a business is available very arbitrarily and the ability to benefit from the running of a business (ie, do so without taking out a massive loan or selling everything to investors) even more arbitrarily. The issue isn't with people who have to mortgage their everything to start a dog grooming business, it's with the banks who offer those loans at 0 risk and the people who own those banks and the whole global infrastructure that's been set up to force the majority of the world into positions where one of their only options (other than rebellion, degradation or starvation) is taking a subsistence wage job while a few people up the chain reap massive benefits and the 10-20% of the world in the middle does kind of ok.
Most buisnesses aren't multi million dollar enterprises that buy you governors support. Most are small family affairs that can litterally sink and drown an entire family at a moments notice. So yes someone who has enherited none of the risk of owning the buisness should not attempt to usurp the labor, capital, and risk of the owner.
You haven't really addressed what I said here though, namely that minimum wage workers live riskier lives than business owners so the risk argument is kind of BS and the opportunity to
a) take the "risk" of starting a business and b) benefit from other people starting businesses is available very arbitrarily
Frankly because i don't believe it. If you can't afford to live on the wage you agreed to work for you either negotiate a better wage or you find work willing to pay you more. If you can't find and hold a job like everyone else then i'm sorry i no one can help you at that point.
Well no i think they do so because they work in state owned factories with such a huge overpopulation problem that there is no room for negotiation as you are incredibly replaceable. But i think that's just my genuine hate for easterners coming through.
Most sweatshops are owned by (or at least operated almost exclusively to the benefit of) US corporations and their shareholders, not "states".
In fact, when I was talking about children making T-Shirts in sweatshops until their fingers bleed, I was talking about Guatemalan garmet factories. The Guatemalan "state" tried to put an end to their people working in sweatshops and plantations and the CIA couped them so US corporations could continue making money. Even wikipedia says so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
No i see nothing wrong with it. A business isn't just labor, it's risk and capital. Most business' operate with almost no wiggle-room. Most business are investments of someones entire life's worth of work. If Cherries dog grooming shack down the street goes under, her entire life's saving goes with it. Her minimum wage hair sweeper loses nothing but another job. That worker is guaranteed a check, but if that Dog groomer has a bad month she can't just not pay her employees, it comes out of her pocket whether or not she can afford it. None of the risk is on the worker if something goes wrong.
"If you see nothing wrong with that then you don't have a problem with socialism ;)
I think the rest of what you've written here is kind of bullshit though.
By having minimum wage as their only source of income, a worker is living a much riskier life than the business owner who employs them and reaps profits from their labour, and at worst what the business owner is risking is having to work a minimum wage job themself.
Also, the opportunity to start a business is available very arbitrarily and the ability to benefit from the running of a business (ie, do so without taking out a massive loan or selling everything to investors) even more arbitrarily. The issue isn't with people who have to mortgage their everything to start a dog grooming business, it's with the banks who offer those loans at 0 risk and the people who own those banks and the whole global infrastructure that's been set up to force the majority of the world into positions where one of their only options (other than rebellion, degradation or starvation) is taking a subsistence wage job while a few people up the chain reap massive benefits and the 10-20% of the world in the middle does kind of ok.
Most buisnesses aren't multi million dollar enterprises that buy you governors support. Most are small family affairs that can litterally sink and drown an entire family at a moments notice. So yes someone who has enherited none of the risk of owning the buisness should not attempt to usurp the labor, capital, and risk of the owner.
You haven't really addressed what I said here though, namely that minimum wage workers live riskier lives than business owners so the risk argument is kind of BS and the opportunity to
a) take the "risk" of starting a business and b) benefit from other people starting businesses is available very arbitrarily
Frankly because i don't believe it. If you can't afford to live on the wage you agreed to work for you either negotiate a better wage or you find work willing to pay you more. If you can't find and hold a job like everyone else then i'm sorry i no one can help you at that point.
...
Do you really think children who work in sweatshops making T-Shirts until their fingers bleed are doing it because they're bad negotiators?
Well no i think they do so because they work in state owned factories with such a huge overpopulation problem that there is no room for negotiation as you are incredibly replaceable. But i think that's just my genuine hate for easterners coming through.
Most sweatshops are owned by (or at least operated almost exclusively to the benefit of) US corporations and their shareholders, not "states".
In fact, when I was talking about children making T-Shirts in sweatshops until their fingers bleed, I was talking about Guatemalan garmet factories. The Guatemalan "state" tried to put an end to their people working in sweatshops and plantations and the CIA couped them so US corporations could continue making money. Even wikipedia says so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat