Rubbish; those are regulations that keep markets freer.
lol rubbish. It's merely a balance between the govt. minimizing business losses via 'limited liability'. If you're going to protect business owners by limiting their business losses then you can also protect workers with a wage floor. It isn't 'artificially set' except when corporations buy themselves some pols to keep it from being adjusted for real inflation.
You have a point if that is a trade-off. But of course, the minimum wage does not just apply to corporation so we know that it is not.
For what is worth? I am one of the few people that opposes the existence of corporations. Well, not the existence of corporation, but the current model in which the owners of the corporations have no liability. If a corporation commits an egregious wrong, and it’s rightfully sued, it should not be able to get out of it by saying oh, the corporation has no more money. If it says that, then the owners of the corporation, i.e. the stockholders should be responsibility. They elect the board who selects the CEO and other executives so they are just as much at fault.
On a philosophical level, I can agree that if we allow corporations, essentially unlimited license to screw over ordinary people and never get sued for it, then it makes sense to do something for the “little people “.
My argument would be that minimum wage, and other regulations is not good for them either.
You want no floors for wages, then demand no floors for business owners' losses. and that includes stockholders.
I’m not sure what you mean by no floors for losses? The natural floor for losses is everything you have.
Otherwise you're just a hypocrite and a fraud. No 'corporate personhood' scams, no limited liability except for those corporations originally intended to benefit from that safety net. Also no committing fraud against workers when trying to sucker them to move to where ever you need them.
Not sure what you mean, I might agree with it if I did
For instance every stockholder in Enron should have been held liable for both criminal fines and debts according to their share of the company and not allowed to hide behind bankruptcy frauds protecting their assets from seizure for payment.
Yes, I agree. I made the same point about a corporation that had a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Another poster said it’s not fair to hold mom and Pop responsible because they own chairs in that corporation. My response was “mom and Pop have no business drilling in the golf. They obviously don’t know what they’re doing so they should get out of that business.”
