[Hokusai]

> His employees are free to seek a better paid employment if a jerk they work for underpays them.

So, people have options to stop being poor, people have options to not have to pee in a bottle at work, but they chose to do it, why?

Poverty removes many options, lack of good education removes many options, abusive corporations keep options far away. The system is the problem, people is just living in a system manipulated for the benefit of others.

It's not a handout, it's asking for growth to be shared fairly. It's about taking care of our fellow humans. It's about creating a society that works for everyone and not just the few.

[dantheman]

It is a handout. It's a handout you agree with, but it's a handout.

[jimbokun]

> It's not a handout, it's asking for growth to be shared fairly. It's about taking care of our fellow humans. It's about creating a society that works for everyone and not just the few.

Stop with the feel good euphemisms!

Which SPECIFIC policies do you want? Full blown communism? Single payer health care? Universal Basic Income?

Every ACTUAL policy has costs, trade offs and drawbacks. Put actual dollar amounts on the table, and a rational discussion can take place.

Just handwaving about a society where everyone someway somehow gets everything they need to happy, healthy, fulfilled, and self-actualized accomplishes nothing.

[pb7]

>people have options to not have to pee in a bottle at work

Just because a few weird individuals chose to do this doesn't mean you have to do it. It's a folk tale used as a rallying cry against Amazon. It has as much meaning as Googlers earning $300K/year choosing to live in vans parked outside the office. Some people make questionable decisions. It doesn't speak at all to any sort of environmental problems.

[bicknergseng]

I'm curious if you actually think there's a real equivalency between choosing to eccentrically live in a van despite having more socially acceptable alternative options enabled by a salary far above the median vs making desperate moves to keep a poverty-low-but-not-the-absolute-lowest job that is designed to force turnover for all but the "highest performers." I understand there's a lot of hyperbole in a topic that deserves way more nuance, but IMO trying to make these seem the same causes more damage than anything else, since it drives this negatively reinforcing cycle where the effectively disenfranchised group of poverty wage workers somehow has a real stake at the table.

[tailrecursion]

And the handout-mentality people want to give that abusive system more power by demanding handouts on which they become dependent, and demanding censorship.