Actually, most employers hand you an employee handbook with the 500 things they can fire you for, with a notation "this is not a contract".
That may be the case in some areas but even so, every hired employee is hired knowing how much they'll be paid going in.
But if you think this wealth inequality can go on you are deluding yourself. Last year was a preview.
Unless you're suggesting a cashier should be paid the same as the manager, there is no such thing as wealth inequality.
The wealth equality that you envision would ensure the death of ambition, passion, innovation, creativity and vision. It would be a dull, colorless world where second rate employees would be rewarded for their incompetence, apathy and laziness by being paid as much as management.
Furthermore, the middle class you claim to champion would all but disappear. I've lived in Panama and worked in Brazil and while these may not be strictly socialist countries, they are more so than the U.S.. I can tell you from experience that these two countries virtually have no middle class. There are the rich and powerful and then there's everybody else, most of whom live in abject fear for their jobs and positions every day. Any minor reprimand conjures paranoid fears of losing their jobs and failing to provide for their families.
I personally witnessed intimidation and bullying to such a degree there that it made me sick to my stomach to see my Brazilian coworkers that I cared about treated in such a way and to watch them kowtow to these slugs.
I personally intervened on behalf of one of my Brazilian coworkers who was asked by the chief of operations of the company he worked for to scan and e-mail copies of my and the other American's passports. Our internet was slow due to company bandwidth restrictions on our satellite communication system and damage to our dish receiver. Therefore, it was a slow process so after a while his CoO called back to ask what was taking so long. He explained that our internet was slow and that it took time to scan every page of the passports but the CoO was having none of it. He proceeded to chew the guy out and asserted that the internet was not slow, as if he had any ******* idea about our internet.
Naturally, my Brazilian coworker was upset and anxious about losing his job so I composed an e-mail to the CoO and told him that we, in fact, did have slow internet. I told him that he essentially called the guy a liar and that I did not appreciate him speaking to my crewmembers in this manner. I never got a response.
My point here is that with socialism, there would be no middle class and the existing labor rules and laws would simply be flouted and manipulated by those in power to keep the lower class where they are.
On a side note, the Brazilian company we worked for is a state owned corporation that has a policy that it is virtually impossible for an employee to get fired. Therefore, everybody wanted to work for them.
Good idea. Let's vote in socialism, and redistribute the gold.
I'll bring the Guillotine.
I said go and get some, I did not say steal it from others or kill for it. If stealing/taking money from those who earned it or killing them for it is the only solution you can think of then you are truly one pathetic human being.
We know you are invested in the murder of this black child. If Wilson told you he was demonically possessed, you'd believe that shit, too.
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com
Moments later, Wilson sees two young black men walking down the yellow stripe in the center of the street. He pulls over. "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" he asks.
And then things get weird.
Brown's response to "what's wrong with the sidewalk?", as recorded by Wilson, is "**** what you have to say." Remember, Wilson is a uniformed police officer, in a police car, and Brown is an 18-year-old kid
who just committed a robbery. And when asked to use the sidewalk, Wilson says Brown replied, "**** what you have to say."
So Brown is punching inside the car. Wilson is scrambling to deflect the blows, to protect his face, to regain control of the situation. And then Brown stops, turns to his left, says to his friend, "Here, hold these,"
and hands him the cigarillos stolen from Ferguson Market. Then he turns back to Wilson and, with his left hand now freed from holding the contraband goods, throws a haymaker at Wilson.
Every bullshit detector in me went off when I read that passage. Which doesn't mean that it didn't happen exactly the way Wilson describes. But it is, again, hard to imagine. Brown, an 18-year-old kid holding stolen goods, decides to attack a cop and, while attacking him, stops, hands his stolen goods to his friend, and then returns to the beatdown. It reads less like something a human would do and more like a moment meant to connect Brown to the robbery.
Uh, Brown
was connected to the robbery; he was the guy who actually took the cigars. Did you forget about that?
Having said that, I don't understand your confusion. Wilson never actually said anything about the cigars or the robbery to Brown, he only spotted the cigars in Brown's hand, which tipped him off to the possibility that Brown was the suspect. After calling dispatch to tell them he was probably looking at the suspects and that he needed backup, he parked the cruiser to block their path, said "Hey, come here." and attempted to get out of the cruiser. That was when Brown attacked him.
Bottom line, Brown probably had no idea that the cigar theft was the reason Wilson tried to accost him. He likely thought Wilson was still confronting him about their walking in the middle of the street and refusing to get on the sidewalk. It would explain why he nonchalantly handed the cigars to his friend.
We know you are invested in the murder of this black child.
Doesn't matter whether I am or not, he's the one who made the stupid decision to attack an officer.
A question: Your insistence on referring to Brown as a black child notwithstanding, do you at least acknowledge that he was an adult in the eyes of the law?
I await your evasion with anticipation.
