ilikeaces86 Endorses McCain!

[2_Thumbs_Up]

I don't think that you can defend jobs that are dangerous or don't pay a living wage solely because "it's the best alternative they have". If the owners, managers and stockholders of the company are making money (and often a shitload of it), they have an obligation to provide a safe work environment and a living wage.

A company hires exactly as many as they estimate is profitable. If wages were higher, they'd hire less people. It's unreasonable to expect they'd do anything else. To hire more people than is profitable is charity. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with charity, but it's not really the first interest of running a business. Also, if you're going to demand charity from people you could just as well demand it from those who are not hiring these people. At least the companies are doing something about the situation.
The only long-term solution is to provide as many alternative ways to provide for yourself as possible. If that is done, people will be perfectly able to choose the best alternative themself. Also, as the job:labor ratio increase, the market value of labor goes up. The market is self-regulating and the worst jobs will dissappear. The reason the situation is better in US is not because of all the regulations. It's because there are now so many more ways to provide for yourself.

Obviously what constitutes a living wage is up for debate, but one on which two working parents could feed their children, pay rent and afford medical treatment seems like a good place to start.

It's easy to say that everyone should afford these things. The thing is that they have to be produced as well. If there is a scarcity of something, lets say homes, then it is very important that homes are expensive. This provides an incitament to build more homes.

I'm not talking about fraud and theft, I'm talking about business owners taking advantage of a free market system to exploit workers. When you look at what capitalism wrought in the late 1800's and early 1900's in terms of working conditions and economic inequality it's impossible to argue that unchecked capitalism is a good thing.

I knew you weren't talking about fraud and theft. But it's among the few things I believe the governement should actually prohibit.
The 1800's was basically the triumph of the middle class. Sure, working conditions were very poor to begin with, but they did improve. If you look at factors such as life expectancy, working hours and infant mortality they were all improving. Surely, these things have to be a good indication of the wealth of the entire population.

2thumbs the french rev happened because the rich were in power and taxed the poor. Now how is this at all different from special interest groups controlling our government and twisting its arm to effectively let them tax the people?

It's not that different at all. But more importantly, it's definitely not the result of a free market. It's the result of allowing the government to meddle in the economy in the first place. This is the very opposite of a free market.

Sure its not the king of america imposing an unjust tax

All taxes are unjust imo.

but non the less the rich are in control and using it to their advantage to keep the poor where they are. Its like jim crow laws were just a reinvention of race based slavery. Its the same set of rules, theyve just given the game a new name.

The rich are not in control (not directly at least). The government is. If the power had never been granted to the government in the first place, then there'd be no privileges for the rich.