I do have self-esteem issues, good catch, but I doubt my getting therapy would do much about already underpaid workers whose bosses are raking in bonuses while signing off on orders to furlough them, for example.
Ok. This sounds like a bit of a change of subject, but I think I follow. This all sounds a bit general: which 'underpaid workers' (and what is 'underpaid'?), which bosses, and how much are they 'raking in', is it illegal? You need to be more precise to diagnose a problem.
More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise? You have my sympathy if you are the one stuck with an unreasonable employer and feel that you are underpaid: my advice would be to look for a new job and tell your employer where to go once you've found one.
However, if you are not in that category -- I have to say that I've never found the altruistic Guardianista (there -- I've said it!) approach to economic problems to be at all credible. It all smacks of some perverse neo-Christian moralising about what's 'fair' and 'good'. You can nearly always tell that an economic argument is lost when people start speaking about morality. If you want to go to Heaven, you're welcome. Me -- I'd rather go to Disneyland : at least it's actually there (besides, I've never been before).
Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes? It's convenient, sure, but that's about all it is. If you want a more 'precise' example, here's a thread from just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319477
> More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise?
Not at all, I'm sure they just roll over and "let themselves be sacked" because that's how it works? Saying "just get a job where you're treated fairly" is extremely reductive. Said jobs wouldn't exist if the people employed in them were already happy with readily available non-"exploitative" jobs elsewhere.
I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral. Not economically unviable, not illegal. Immoral. Anyway, I'm not really looking for credibility, and my moral compass isn't tied to faith or organized religion, but your point is taken. Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste. You're going to believe people like me invent problems to compensate for our failures, and I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to. We're not going to agree here and I'm not really interested in changing your mind. Have a nice day.
> Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes?
It isn't better, nor is it worse; it is merely more objective, that's all.
> I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral.
Yes, sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but you're quite right on this count. I was simply attempting to rubbish an anti-capitalist argument in the article, but it blew up in my face.
> Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste.
That's ok. Who's to say which one of us is 'right'? We can just say that we have profound disagreements about the merits of capitalism as an economic system -- I think that's fair and it shouldn't be a problem in a democracy.
> I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to.
You believe that if it gives you any comfort. For now, I'll just continue believing that "economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses" and leave it at that.
