Yes. Plenty. But it requires more work than most people are willing to do, so, the unionize and that is the refuge of the refuse.

Individuals vs collectives is an argument i can get behind, just wondering if there's any protection from offspring

Any collectivist action that uses the threat of force (either directly by those wanting to unionize or tangentially through taxation as a means to pay public sector unions) is unethical/immoral.

Collectivist bargaining is also BS. It reduces people to a monotonous set of inputs. Unions also tend to end up making it impossible to fire deadbeats and people who do really bad stuff.

I think I could rant for hours about this, but, it comes down to individuals vs. collectives and I much prefer individuals

So you're going to force people who own companies what they can and cannot do with their said companies like do you not understandhow unbelievably coercive that sounds. The only reason that automating jobs a way is even looked at as a possibility is because you create artificial floors for pain individuals to work if the minimum wage didn't exist there would be no need to automate jobs away

So you're going to force people who own companies what they can and cannot do with their said companies like do you not understandhow unbelievably coercive that sounds. The only reason that automating jobs a way is even looked at as a possibility is because you create artificial floors for pain individuals to work if the minimum wage didn't exist there would be no need to automate jobs away

So you're going to force people who own companies what they can and cannot do with their said companies like do you not understandhow unbelievably coercive that sounds. The only reason that automating jobs a way is even looked at as a possibility is because you create artificial floors for pain individuals to work if the minimum wage didn't exist there would be no need to automate jobs away

They use force to threaten corps into submitting to their demands. The belief goes that corps would just "exploit" workers if they didn't exist. But such a thing is fallacious when you actually think it through.

If a corporation decided to not pay a wage that was worth a worker's time as the saying goes that we need someone to come in and arbitrate on our behalf in order to raise that pay. But if such a thing was true then said corporation would not be able to hire anyone because they aren't the only corporation to work for therefore people would just go work somewhere else.

The actual fallacy in this notion is that someone somewhere can deem what would be considered a livable wage and then apply that equally across all of a sector of industry. Instead of letting each individual person decide what wage they should work for we demand and deem a certain level of some arbitrary number as the reasoning for why we need This union to come in and protect us from the greedy capitalists.

Hamilton is the Federal Reserve’s favorite play.

I do. I just usually check price on Coinbase

Numbers going up and now coinbase isn't working for me. I'm sure Gensler will be looking into this soon. /s

Gm norstr 🫂🐸

Good morning friendly people 🐸

GM PV Frens

How does one win a meme war?

Only time will tell, but it seems like they’ve stepped off a path that had been leading them to ruin for many years.