[Fasces]

It makes work optional, which is a terrible idea.

It makes wage slavery optional, as much as is feasible. This is a good thing for giving people freedom to risk, innovate, or, if they choose to earn money, to enter into free negotiations with businesses absent coercive elements.

I'm not saying they're all possible, or that work will be fully optional, but reducing the labor cost of basic food, housing, and other necessities to as low as possible is a good thing to aspire to.

many people could sell their house and move into a very modest dwelling and live a modest life and many could do it right now just with the money from the house.

No, they couldn't. Starter homes and low income housing are notoriously undersupplied in North America and Europe.

[Pants-of-dog]

Having said that, a UBI would simply be absorbed by rent gouging landlords who would drastically increase rent prices to pocket the UBI money themselves.

Minimally, a rent control system would be required.

[Unthinking Majority]

It makes wage slavery optional, as much as is feasible. This is a good thing for giving people freedom to risk, innovate, or, if they choose to earn money, to enter into free negotiations with businesses absent coercive elements.

There is no such thing as "wage slavery". Slavery is your employer forcing you to work against your will. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for anybody, these are 100% voluntary and consensual contracts people sign on their own power and no employer is threatening them, coercing them etc to sign the contract. You are not using the definition of coercion correctly, the definition is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats", and no court would hear the argument because its false and ridiculous. If you don't want a wage you're free to start your own business and be your own boss.

If you have an issue with your own biology needing food and shelter then take it up with yourself, or mother nature, and stop blaming employers and making everyone out to be victims.

No, they couldn't. Starter homes and low income housing are notoriously undersupplied in North America and Europe.

They don't need that to live in a hut.

[Wellsy]

Workers unlike a slave have some choice in employer in many cases but no choice to exit the working class, that is the option to not work for the capitalist class at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no such thing as "wage slavery". Slavery is your employer forcing you to work against your will. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for anybody, these are 100% voluntary and consensual contracts people sign on their own power and no employer is threatening them, coercing them etc to sign the contract. You are not using the definition of coercion correctly, the definition is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats", and no court would hear the argument because its false and ridiculous. If you don't want a wage you're free to start your own business and be your own boss.

Yes and no.

For a white guy working legally in some job where he has the specialized education and skills, yes, things work the same way you were taught in grade 10 social studies.

For an undocumented female migrant working in Vancouver’s garment industry, you are basically working in a sweatshop making less than minimum wage and hoping that sexual assault is not the norm in whatever dingy basement you find yourself in.

In between, you have people who cannot change jobs because it is the only job within commuting distance of your kids’ other home that provides the benefits they need for their mental health. In other words, people who can not easily change their jobs no matter what the facile theory taught in the aforementioned grade 10 social studies class.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes and no.

For a white guy working legally in some job where he has the specialized education and skills, yes, things work the same way you were taught in grade 10 social studies.

What does race have anything to do with it? Yes people should follow the law because its there to protect them and prevent exploitation and harassment etc.

For an undocumented female migrant working in Vancouver’s garment industry, you are basically working in a sweatshop making less than minimum wage and hoping that sexual assault is not the norm in whatever dingy basement you find yourself in.

Someone in the country illegally and working illegally should be dealt with by the law. They are still not a slave, they are there by their own free will unless there is forced human trafficking involved, which is also illegal and immoral and should be stopped by law enforcement. If an illegal migrant refuses to follow the laws of a country and thus refuse the laws that are meant to protect workers then yes they can be exploited by people or companies and that's a risk they should be knowingly aware of. A company employing someone illegally and not following employment law should also be dealt with by the law.

I have said from the very beginning of this thread that the only thing an employer or employee owe each other is to follow the law, including the contracts they sign. If the laws need to be adjusted to make things more humane etc, like maternity leave and vacation days or further protections against harassment etc, then that is fine and worthy of discussion.

In between, you have people who cannot change jobs because it is the only job within commuting distance of your kids’ other home that provides the benefits they need for their mental health. In other words, people who can not easily change their jobs no matter what the facile theory taught in the aforementioned grade 10 social studies class.

And whose fault is that? Its certainly not the employers fault or their problem to solve, and it doesn't make a worker "a slave", it means they have some personal problems to solve and choices to make. If a worker has a broken relationship and child living across the city that's a private matter to be resolved between the 2 parents and a product of their own choices.

[Pants-of-dog]

What does race have anything to do with it?

Seriously?

Are you really unaware of how racism makes employment more difficult for people who are not white?

Yes people should follow the law because it’s there to protect them and prevent exploitation and harassment etc.

Someone in the country illegally and working illegally should be dealt with by the law. They are still not a slave, they are there by their own free will unless there is forced human trafficking involved, which is also illegal and immoral and should be stopped by law enforcement.

So you agree that forced labour is happening, and you are adding the information that this is illegal.

If an illegal migrant refuses to follow the laws of a country and thus refuse the laws that are meant to protect workers then yes they can be exploited by people or companies and that's a risk they should be knowingly aware of. A company employing someone illegally and not following employment law should also be dealt with by the law.

And some of these exploitations that undocumented migrants may have to deal with are forced labour and forced confinement.

I have said from the very beginning of this thread that the only thing an employer or employee owe each other is to follow the law, including the contracts they sign. If the laws need to be adjusted to make things more humane etc, like maternity leave and vacation days or further protections against harassment etc, then that is fine and worthy of discussion.

Please note that the conditions that led to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the subsequent deaths were completely legal at the time.

Or, like (at least some of) the clothes you are wearing, many of the components in the computer you are using, and probably some of the food you are digesting, forced labour was part of the long and complex supply network that brought you these goods.

And whose fault is that? It’s certainly not the employers fault or their problem to solve, and it doesn't make a worker "a slave", it means they have some personal problems to solve and choices to make. If a worker has a broken relationship and child living across the city that's a private matter to be resolved between the 2 parents and a product of their own choices.

No one made mention of fault or blame or responsibility.

I simply illustrated a scenario where a person is unable to leave their job, despite the factors being completely legal.

All this to say that the idea of job flexibility and the ensuing freedom it implies are hardly universal in reality.

[AFAIK]

@Unthinking Majority What if some farmers are forced off their land and then offered jobs on the plantation that was set up on their fields? Is their employment 100% voluntary and consensual? What if this happened on a larger scale via enclosure and clearances as it did in Britain when it transitioned to a capitalist mode of production?

[Fasces]

There is no such thing as "wage slavery". Slavery is your employer forcing you to work against your will. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for anybody, these are 100% voluntary and consensual contracts people sign on their own power and no employer is threatening them, coercing them etc to sign the contract. You are not using the definition of coercion correctly, the definition is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats", and no court would hear the argument because its false and ridiculous. If you don't want a wage you're free to start your own business and be your own boss.

Restating the same discredited thing again and again with absolutely no supporting argument accompanying it isn't really a discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

[Unthinking Majority]

Restating the same discredited thing again and again with absolutely no supporting argument accompanying it isn't really a discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

What do you believe is more akin to slavery?:

1. an engineer working for a wage or salary from a private company

or

2. an engineer living in a communist country where the government (a dictatorship) does not allow them or most others with high ability to move outside of the country in order to try to make more money elsewhere, and the government taking by force much or all of the additional wealth created by the engineer above that of the average worker and giving it to people who are less productive than the average worker?

It seems to me that in scenario #2 the engineer is a slave to the state and to the workers of below-average productivity.

So maybe, there is no such thing as a good communist?

[Fasces]

1. an engineer working for a wage or salary from a private company

or

2. an engineer living in a communist country where the government (a dictatorship) does not allow them or most others with high ability to move outside of the country in order to try to make more money elsewhere, and the government taking by force much or all of the additional wealth created by the engineer above that of the average worker and giving it to people who are less productive than the average worker?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you believe is more akin to slavery?:

1. an engineer working for a wage or salary from a private company

or

2. an engineer living in a communist country where the government (a dictatorship) does not allow them or most others with high ability to move outside of the country in order to try to make more money elsewhere, and the government taking by force much or all of the additional wealth created by the engineer above that of the average worker and giving it to people who are less productive than the average worker?

It seems to me that in scenario #2 the engineer is a slave to the state and to the workers of below-average productivity.

So maybe, there is no such thing as a good communist?

Or, to draw on personal observations, the engineer who had to flee his homeland because the USA supported a right wing coup, is too poor to have his education recognized in Canada, and ends up having to take a minimum wage job?

Unlike your hypothetical whataboutism of some socialist state, this scenario is both well known and occurs in the capitalist system which is the topic, therefore more worthy of discussion.

[Unthinking Majority]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Go tax all the billionaires until they're no longer billionaires to pay for your universal income plan, then you'll either watch most of them leave or trap them or their money/property inside the country. Slaves?

[Unthinking Majority]

Or, to draw on personal observations, the engineer who had to flee his homeland because the USA supported a right wing coup, is too poor to have his education recognized in Canada, and ends up having to take a minimum wage job?

Unlike your hypothetical whataboutism of some socialist state, this scenario is both well known and occurs in the capitalist system which is the topic, therefore more worthy of discussion.

It's not hypothetical, every communist country has barred its most valuable workers from moving to other countries. They build walls to keep them in if the country isn't surrounded by water. The US has to build walls to keep people out because so many want to live there due to its economy.

What does migrant professionals needing more education to reach higher western standards to prevent health and safety issues have to do with slavery? Canada and other western countries are places of economic opportunity where people can earn wealth, why should it be a place for new residents who haven't contributed anything yet to be simply given other people's wealth, or programs paid for with the wealth of others? Tuitions are already highly subsidized by tax dollars, and generous student loan programs exist, and the healthcare for refugees (even refugee claimants who are eventually rejected) is paid for by taxes also.

[Pants-of-dog]

Go tax all the billionaires until they're no longer billionaires to pay for your universal income plan, then you'll either watch most of them leave or trap them or their money/property inside the country. Slaves?

I hear Russia is accepting such wealthy and productive citizens!

[Pants-of-dog]

What does migrant professionals needing more education to reach higher western standards to prevent health and safety issues have to do with slavery?

The migrant is being forced to do unsafe or underpaid work because it is the only job available and his is despite the fact that this person has made responsible decisions all their life.

Canada and other western countries are places of economic opportunity where people can earn wealth, why should it be a place for new residents who haven't contributed anything yet to be simply given other people's wealth, or programs paid for with the wealth of others?

Why not?

Anyway, getting back to the point:

Capitalism has many example of modern day slavery no matter how you define it. And people become billionaires by finding these situations and exploiting them for profit.

Tuitions are already highly subsidized by tax dollars, and generous student loan programs exist, and the healthcare for refugees (even refugee claimants who are eventually rejected) is paid for by taxes also.

Okay.

Is this a problem?

Should this be changed so that billionaires find it easier to make billions?