So, because the world used to terrible centuries ago, and still is in some undeveloped or wartorn nations, we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible here in one of the richest nations in the world, even though it doesn't have to be?
The argument is 1) there is no common definition of what is acceptable, globally it depends on our current living standard hence ultimately the society's level of development 2) on an individual level some would not make the same choices as you so it is ridiculous for you to make judgments on behalf of others 3) if we had implemented those kind of laws earlier, either everybody was forbidden of improving its conditions and freely shop for employers, there would have been enormous inflation (see Venezuela), or the laws wouldn't have been followed at all (most probable).
we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible
The fact is that most poor people right now are better off than two centuries ago ; so your adjective "terrible" is relative. In 200 years from now, maybe not having its own personal spaceship will be deemed "terrible" by some ;)
>if we had implemented those kind of laws earlier, either everybody was forbidden of improving its conditions and freely shop for employers, there would have been enormous inflation (see Venezuela),
99% sure Venezuela's inflation problems come more from the fact that the president-dictator takes monetary policy advice from a ghost-parrot, and not as much from implementing occupational safety standards that have been normal in North America and Europe for a century.
It’s instructive to wonder why Venezuelan rulers felt forced to print money so wantonly. Ie. why did what should be a prosperous country given their natural advantages need to devalue their currency so massively, where did their debts, ruined oil industry, and fiscal irresponsibility come from?
The answer is at least in part that the state attempted to deliver benefits to the poor not directly and honestly through taxing and redistribution, but through wage & price controls, and outright nationalization. Direct massive manipulation of the market. Obviously implementing occupational safety standards, or collecting resource extraction royalties at a rate similar to Canada wouldn’t have had this effect, neither would have a modest increase in the minimum wage that reflected natural wage growth. However there is something to GPs point; the history of labor laws in developed countries haven’t only altered the conditions a competitive labor market must operate in, but also reflect changes that have already been achieved through the competitive market. The laws against child labor, for instance, were only possible once a critical mass of the population had already pulled their children out of the labor market as productivity and living standards increased and made this possible (and don’t forget that unpaid child labour was rampant in agricultural families, and to this day remains largely exempt from legal censure in developed nations).
As productivity reaches higher levels, labor has been able to demand a greater share of the surplus through competitive labor markets and eventually agitate to institute that in laws, but it’s always been an interplay between these two effects. The massive unprecedentedly rapid reduction in absolute poverty in China where millions have left the brutality of rural poverty to work in factories that many of us in more developed nations would consider inhumane has seen this played out in an incredibly compressed timeline, and I’m certain that there are very few people living in a Chinese special economic zone who would trade places with a resident of Caracas in 2018.
You can repeat the living standards meme as often as you like, but when people think the system is rigged against them, they will try to burn down the current system (best case just by election) and replace it with whatever might be more fair. And become susceptible to crappy populist promises.
So: yes, the rising inequality is a problem, no matter how badly some want to sell that as just a part of life (at least the way we currently structure it).
And i don't want a communist utopia. But also not reducing taxes for top earners to zero.
I agree, and I don't think inequality cannot be solved. But I really do think minimum wage increase the inequality problem anyway. Also, "fair" could just mean everyone pays the same tax percentage
So, because the world used to terrible centuries ago, and still is in some undeveloped or wartorn nations, we should be OK with it continuing to be terrible here in one of the richest nations in the world, even though it doesn't have to be?