Is it just me, or is employment modern say slavery or indentured servitude?

[AmateurBusinessman]

I know that may seem extreme, inappropriate to say, outrageously presumed, or outright silly --but maybe it isn't. Business owners choose how long their employees will stay away from their families, what their pay will be, how far they'll be promoted within their company --if at all-- and the amount of time they'll be allowed to feed themselves --which always came off as embarrassing to me. With all of that being said, is employment similar to or a modern form of indentured servitude or slavery? Employees may think they have it good with certain jobs, but realistically --they may not or don't. Maybe they believe they're not a pawn on another persons business model/business vehicle, or don't understand the advantages business owners have over them --or maybe it's something else not mentioned.

If it's not indentured servitude or slavery, what is it? If it's indentured slavery or servitude, how is it? Is it due to all the things mentioned? Other things not mentioned? If so, what? A lot of employees are also astoundingly unquestioning, and due to having a belief of their lives being destined to be as mentioned --due to unchangeable life circumstances --they accept it openly.

[tallen]

It is not indentured servitude or slavery because the employees are free to leave anytime they want -- the fact that they might not see it that way doesn't change the fact that it is a choice that they have.

That said, I think that many employers have been too greedy for too long, and that it may well lead to their ultimate downfall.

I see employment and the economy as a whole, as a big two-way problem-solving exercise -- we all have the basic problem of providing food and shelter for ourselves and our families. Most of us do not try to solve that problem directly by growing/hunting our own food, sewing our own clothes, building our own house (etc...), but rather by applying our skills, knowledge, and/or raw labor to helping to solve the problems of others in exchange for currency that we can use to then solve our own problems. But employers have to be sure that they are providing their employees with sufficient means for the employee to solve the employee's problems (i.e., a liveable wage and working conditions), or the system breaks down. And I think we are approaching that point, if not already there.

[Freelancier]

a modern form of indentured servitude or slavery

Maybe someone needs to read this: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Solomon_Northup_Twelve_Years_a_Slave?id=kTaJH3W2tr EC

[turboguy]

The book on 12 years as a slave looks like a great read.

As to the topic at hand I think there was a lot of validity to that back 75 years ago when jobs were more limited, when people tended to stay in one place for their whole life and when most worked in one job for one company their whole life. I grew up in a small town that was in the heart of steel country (near Pittsburgh). Most of the people in that town worked in one of the steel mills and most loved to complain about their job and talk about how much they hated it. They did plan to stay and retire. The pay was decent. They thought they had a secure retirement. I am sure they did whatever they had to to keep their job and I think saying they were slaves to their job would be a fairly accurate description.

Perhaps in some parts of the world life is still like that but I don't think it is true of American workers today. Yes, some still work in jobs they don't like much and you may have to do what you are told if you want to keep your job but it is getting pretty rare for someone to work for one employer from the time they finish school until they retire and there are enough job opportunities that if they want to change jobs even if they don't have skills they have lots of choices. Most people who work in low paying jobs that offer little opportunity really have themselves to blame. In many cases they decided to drop out of school, do drugs or not work to improve their job skills. We have enough difficulty finding good workers that I have to think that anyone with decent skills does not need to be locked into a job they hate. Most of the jobs that are really unpleasant have to pay enough to make those jobs attractive to workers.

[Bobjob]

I don't agree with you, but I used to kinda see it that way. I live in the south and our county is almost 50/50 black and white. I saw the black people working road crews, construction (now latins do the construction). National chain fast food here is 80% black people, so I thought, "is this slavery?" But it is not, it is freedom. Anyone who does not like their job can quit. I live in America. I believe there is more assistance out there to improve yourself / to find better or another employment than in any other country. I would share my thoughts on permanent government welfare enslaving people, but no one wants to hear another one of those rants.

[Brian Altenhofel]

You can choose your employer. If you don't like the employment terms or requirements, find another job.

[Harold Mansfield]

Anytime you start comparing anything to slavery (or Hitler) you're ruining the rest of your argument. A good rule of thumb is, if you aren't considered property, can come and go as you please, aren't whipped and beaten, your spouse and kids aren't taken away from you and sold, and the threat of being killed isn't constantly hanging over your head, it's probably not slavery.

But I get your point. Why bust ass to make someone elses business successful for crap pay that will never get you anywhere, when you can take a chance on working for yourself where potentially the sky is the limit. Of course the scary part is it's all up to you and there's no safety net or weekly paycheck when things are slow or don't work out.

I think of it more like Kings and serfs. The kings are only going to pay so much and the system is so stacked against the serfs that they end up in what I compare to an abusive relationship. You know the King gets all of the breaks, but you're scared to stand up against it for fear that they may fire you.

Every now and then the King throws you some extra potatoes, and since your so tired of being screwed that little gesture makes you feel appreciated so you're singing his praises and pledging your loyalty. Just like a battered woman.

The system is so whacked that the serfs actually feel indebted to the King for giving them a job, as if it's some kind of charity and they aren't earning their pay.

This argument comes up every time there's a call for a fair tax system without loopholes or raising the min wage. The serfs are struggling, but the Kings claim if they're forced to pay a fair wage or a flat tax with everyone else, that they'll have to lay people off. Which scares the serfs into backing down, and the Kings continue to make record profits, which they hide over seas to avoid paying taxes for the services that the serfs need to survive and even get ahead...like a better education system or infrastructure. It's a round robin.

And then a small percentage of serfs join the King's army where they get 3 squares a day and a little money to send back home. In exchange they risk their lives to fight for more trade routs (or protect the ones we already have) for the King to exploit and profit on, which only benefits the serfs in the way of more crap jobs outside the palace walls. No better pay or advancement. Wages will never go up for the serfs, because they're scared to fight for it for fear of losing the crap that they have.

And since the King has basically killed organized labor and unions, he'll be the King forever and the serfs will be serfs forever. The King needs it to be that way because he needs a work force, consumers, and an Army to protect his riches and territory.

Back in the day there used to be one King. Today 1% of the population are Kings who work together to keep the Kingdom subservient to them, and the other 99% are the Serfs who work the industries and fight in the Kings army. Some of us get a plot of land to grow our own crops and sell to the other serfs, but we're still outside the palace walls.

As Brian said, you can choose your employer and your profession. But the fewer skills and education you have the fewer options you have.

Today, skills and education are important. If you have them you can write your own ticket.
Of course how do you get the skills if your schools suck, and college (if you can even get in with your crap public school diploma) is priced out of your reach? Meanwhile if you dare demand that your taxes start working for you, the Kings tell you that you're lazy freeloaders looking for the government to take care of you.

"Better education? How dare you demand that! Tell you what, we'll let you have a little more of your own money for better schools, but only if you get rid of the unions that fight for your rights and better wages. Deal? Oh yeah, forget to tell you...we don't have that money that we promised you for better schools. We actually need to make cuts to education again. ". "Maybe the next election. We'll give you a choice of our candidates to vote for. "

And therein lies the problem for a lot of Americans. It ends up being a whirlpool that many people can't get out of the older they get and the more responsibilities they have.

So professionally it comes down to whether you're in demand, or just a serf working a job that any other serf can do. If you're a serf, you're screwed. If you're in demand you get to work next to the King for higher wages. The King needs you. You may even become a King yourself.

[Fulcrum]

@OP,
Why bring this up here, in a forum that will be, in general, against everything that you have written?

As some of the previous posters have shown, we're open to discussion, but I want to understand your reasoning for asking this type of loaded question.

[Brian Altenhofel]

I figured since I did my last reply on a mobile and on the run, I'll hit on some points.


Business owners choose how long their employees will stay away from their families

No, they don't. If a job requires long hours, the employee chooses to accept it. Even then, at least in the US there are numerous regulations related to how much an employee can be required to work, even on salary.


what their pay will be

Pay is a product of negotiation. An applicant's job is to sell to the potential employer that they are worth what they are asking for. The employer's job is to maximize the return on investment in that employee. They have to meet in the middle somewhere. Too many applicants assume that "Salary: $60K-$80K" means the company is only willing to pay $60K and ask for that (or sometimes less) thinking that will increase their chances of getting a job. That really tells the potential employer that the applicant lacks confidence. No one wants employees who lack confidence. If an applicant asks for $90K for that same job, they might even get it because they were able to sell that they worth that much to the company.


how far they'll be promoted within their company

The employee's experience, confidence, ability to manage people, and ability to adapt determine whether or not they can be promoted in a hierarchical company. There are many folks who have no desire to manage people and don't want to be promoted to managerial roles.


and the amount of time they'll be allowed to feed themselves

In the US, there are regulations on meal breaks and work breaks. That's mostly out of the employer's hands.

[Paul]

is employment similar to or a modern form of indentured servitude or slavery? ..................A lot of employees are also astoundingly unquestioning, and due to having a belief of their lives being destined to be as mentioned --due to unchangeable life circumstances --they accept it openly.

Your contention that employees are hapless fools subjected to the whims and control of employers is somewhat condescending, in my humble opinion. Each of us is our own engine of financial activity, whether as an employee or as a business. Being an employee isn’t a form of servitude or slavery. For many it is a luxury to be able to generate income without the risk and responsibility of being in business themselves.

[Harold Mansfield]

Your contention that employees are hapless fools subjected to the whims and control of employers is somewhat condescending, in my humble opinion. Each of us is our own engine of financial activity, whether as an employee or as a business. Being an employee isn’t a form of servitude or slavery. For many it is a luxury to be able to generate income without the risk and responsibility of being in business themselves.


I agree with Paul. If you hate your job whose fault is that? Your employers, or yours for staying there?

I used to say there's 2 kinds of employees. The kind that get 30 minutes for lunch and have to get permission to call in sick, or the kind that get an hour for lunch and receive "get well soon" messages when they call in sick.

If you're the 1st, it's time to get a move on and be one of the hour lunch people and that usually means hard work and some education. Not too many 30 minute lunch people become hour lunch people without superior skills and education.

[Paul]

I like your lunch hour analogy. You ONE HOUR LUNCH employees are generally quite happy with their job, employer and life in general. I always felt that being an employee was just a another form of your own business. You trade your time and skills for compensation, pretty basic.

[Harold Mansfield]

I always felt that being an employee was just a another form of your own business. You trade your time and skills for compensation, pretty basic.
That's how I always felt when I was a bartender and drove a limo. The company provided the space, organization and tools to do the work and take care of their customers. However, how much I made by going the extra mile and building a clientele of my own was up to me. Of course that attitude and set up only works when your salary is based on tips or commission. Otherwise you have to bust hump hoping for a promotion with a raise.

[turboguy]

Now that we have had a chance to kick that around a bit let me add a second question to the mix.

Is it just me, or is being a business owner a form of modern day slavery or indentured servitude?

Are not we business owners a slave to the government. We are told what we have to pay employees, We can't discriminate, we even have to pay for the time they spend eating or taking a leak. If we have more work and can't get it done in the time they are supposed to and have to work longer hours we have to pay them more money. Why is it our fault if they are too slow to get their work done in the 40 hours we want it done in. Then too, we have to follow all these stupid regulations that are "supposed" to make the work place safer most of which are stupid.

It just doesn't seem fair to me. In a perfect free market economy should we not be able to pay people whatever we want and make them work as long as we need them.

[Harold Mansfield]

Oh boy.


Now that we have had a chance to kick that around a bit let me add a second question to the mix.

Is it just me, or is being a business owner a form of modern day slavery or indentured servitude?

Are not we business owners a slave to the government.
.

No. You are not. There are plenty of countries where you are a slave to a government who either always has their hand out, or are so corrupt that it's impossible for an honest business owner to make a living. I'll start with China and end with Russia and there's at least 50 countries in between.


We are told what we have to pay employees,
Before there were standards, children worked in factories and mines, and people were paid pennies a day. The government doesn't tell you how much to pay. It only says that you cannot pay below the poverty line, and honestly min wage is still below the poverty line, which the tax payer has to subsidize so that people working for min can eat. So in essence, even paying the minimum still puts a burden on the tax payer to subsidize the profits of companies like McDonald's and Walmart.



We can't discriminate,
Blame the United States Constitution for that one. And actually you can. No one can change what's in your heart. However, running a business is not a right. It's a privilege granted to you where you promise to follow the law if granted that privilege. If your personal baggage, politics or religion prevents you from doing that then don't ask for a license.


we even have to pay for the time they spend eating or taking a leak. If we have more work and can't get it done in the time they are supposed to and have to work longer hours we have to pay them more money.
Refer to my previous statement about child labor, and go ahead and add in immigrants and farm workers. In short please see the 1800's through early 1900's. Standards wouldn't be necessary if employers did the right thing. Unfortunately when no one is watching, Boss Hog will cut every corner possible to increase profits to the detrmiment and safety of his workers.




Why is it our fault if they are too slow to get their work done in the 40 hours we want it done in.
It is your fault. You hired them. If they aren't up to the task, find someone who is. But therein lies the rub. You can't hire better if you aren't paying better or aren't a nice person to work for.


Then too, we have to follow all these stupid regulations that are "supposed" to make the work place safer most of which are stupid.
Again, refer to my earlier statements on child labor, and add what used to be horrible work conditions in America through the early 1900's. It may seem stupid now, but back then people literally died on the job because things were so unsafe.


It just doesn't seem fair to me. In a perfect free market economy should we not be able to pay people whatever we want and make them work as long as we need them.

There is no perfect free market economy and what you're describing is what they have in places where we outsource all of our manufacturing. It's basically slave labor where the boss controls everything from how little they pay, to where you live and what you are allowed to do.


Experience has taught me that you don't get more productivity out of people by treating them like crap.
Good employers are gracious and thankful for good employees because they are nothing without them.

If you don't have good employees, it's your fault. Either you're a bad boss or you don't pay enough to attract the talent you need.

This notion that employers should be worshiped and thanked for letting people work for them is laughable. As an employee I do my job, and earn my pay. The job I do puts money in YOUR pocket. You aren't giving me anything. You need people like me, more than I need you specifically. If you aren't paying well and are a jerk, I can go at anytime.

I think that's what's wrong with were we are today. Employers act like Kings who treat workers as if they owe them. That never works out well and your productivity and bottom line will suffer because of it. Appreciated employees go the extra mile and care about your company.

I can point you to a number of case studies of tech companies that have failed because they treated employees like crap, and they all bailed so fast when opportunity arose that the company couldn't sustain itself because no one would work for it. I know a few local bars ( since I was in that business) that have failed for the same reason. From million dollar joints to Mom and Pops.

Owning a business doesn't mean you're just automatically a good boss. Some people are so horrible that they should be banned from managing other humans.

[Freelancier]

In a perfect free market economy
Doesn't exist. Except maybe in places like Somalia. So disabuse yourself of the notion that that's what we have or even that's what we're striving toward, because we're not and having been for well over 100 years.

[Harold Mansfield]

At the risk of rambling, the whole notion that the government is taking something from you unfairly ( taxes) is short sighted. Because you use the resources that taxes pay for to run your business. The roads and rail that you depend on for shipments and deliveries, and for your employees to get to work. Water and sewage. Standards and regulated power. Air travel. Trade agreements. Interstate commerce. Regulation of the internet and banking so that your money doesn't just disappear. Law enforcement to protect your property. And a million other things that you take for granted that you expect to be there, but complain about paying for.

I agree that the tax system is outdated and heavily favors the top more than the working class and small business owner, but for the most part pooling our money and resources to get big things done that we all need and cannot do alone...for the most part that works and is responsible for this being the most powerful economy in the world.

If you really think all of the things that you take for granted would "just happen" and people would just do the right thing if there was no Government watching over it, pick any number of countries that have been around a lot longer than us, but are still dirt poor with no economies and explain why it doesn't "just happen" there.

It's not that there aren't people there who are just as smart. It's because they don't have the structure, resources, and government that supports and encourages hard work and innovation without the underlying corruption.

[Fulcrum]

@OP - Great troll. Just enough truth in there to make your argument seem legitimate.

@ Harold - Take a deep breath. I think Ray went mostly to the opposite extreme that the OP started with to make a similar point proving the same fallacy. However, you forgot about the professional welfare bum that has $10K+ worth of ink and metal (that's your tax dollars that paid for some of that). I know of mail carriers that wanted to report welfare fraud but couldn't due to being accused of reading other people's mail.

@Turboguy - A tip of the hat to you. You forgot to mention the addict (booze or drugs, it doesn't matter) that is sent to rehab on your dime or the guy that clocks in, spends his first 30min on the toilet, spends another 15min there before and after coffee as well as lunch, and 30 min on the toilet again at the end of the day before clocking out.

[Harold Mansfield]

@ Harold - Take a deep breath. I think Ray went mostly to the opposite extreme that the OP started with to make a similar point proving the same fallacy. However, you forgot about the professional welfare bum that has $10K+ worth of ink and metal (that's your tax dollars that paid for some of that). I know of mail carriers that wanted to report welfare fraud but couldn't due to being accused of reading other people's mail.

@Turboguy - A tip of the hat to you. You forgot to mention the addict (booze or drugs, it doesn't matter) that is sent to rehab on your dime or the guy that clocks in, spends his first 30min on the toilet, spends another 15min there before and after coffee as well as lunch, and 30 min on the toilet again at the end of the day before clocking out.
These are all extreme examples. It's not the norm. There are far more people committing disability fraud than welfare fraud these days. It's not as easy as it used to be, and most welfare goes to people with children, not single able bodied adults.

If you have an addict working for you, and he's not union, you fire him. If he's union, give it to them. Many have support for treatment programs.

My point is, anyone can think of the most extreme circumstance and someone will say they have a friend or cousin or guy in the next town over that has seen it and their hands were tied, or affirmative action or some other reason that really can't be proven. Not discounting what you are saying, but we tend to get caught up in a lot of hyperbole and folklore and walk around as if it's main stream reality and we are helpless to accept it.

Bottom line, if you see someone defrauding the system..report them. You don't need to read their mail to do it. You just pick up the phone. Sometimes there's even a reward. It's the responsibility of EVERY American. Every bum on a street corner drinking out of a paper bag isn't getting welfare. Unless you know their personal information for sure, it's all just speculation because we have this extreme paranoia in America that everyone who is poor is somehow not only on welfare but committing fraud.

Also millions of people get government checks every month. From military retirees, government workers, social security, unemployment insurance, pensions, people doing business with the government, and on and on. They all come from the same treasury, and the checks all look the same. So you can't see an envelope and tell which government check is what. They've even been disguising the envelopes to thwart people who steal mail on the first of the month and they've been doing that for at least 10 years now.

Also, they don't send welfare checks anymore. Food assistance goes on a card, rent assistance goes to the landlord. Most everything else is direct deposit or on a debit card. The government doesn't send cash checks to welfare recipients. Even UE is on a debit card now and the Government sends you the card. It's all electronic ( well, mostly).

I like to get upset on facts and things that I know are happening.

And I'm not upset or being argumentative. I'm just very opinionated on this subject. I also grew up with my Mom working for the Social Services Department for the state of Michigan for 30 years, so it's really easy for me to separate fact from hyperbole on this subject. They system doesn't work in a way that matches the fiction about welfare fraud and who's doing it.

To be honest, while we're out there looking for Ronald Reagan's welfare queen the biggest fraudsters were doctors falsely or over billing medicaid, landlords billing for tenants that no longer lived there, and corner stores buying food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar. They were hitting the tax payer for 100's of millions for decades. We finally get that cleaned up and started putting people in jail. I'm just saying, it's not the 70's anymore.

[Fulcrum]

We are in agreement, for the most part. What you saw with your mom working for social services has helped frame your understanding yet my sister saw a lot of what I said when she interned at a clinic. Maybe its just the difference between our countries and how our social programs are setup, or maybe there are fundamental problems that need to be rooted out (that's going a little too far off topic though and borders on the taboo of politics).

As for the addict getting fired, again its probably the difference between the US and Canada. There have been companies up here that were forced to pay an exceptionally high (2 years+ salary) severance even though they fired said addict, for cause (against employee handbook) even though federal law states 2 weeks severance per year employed (lawyers found a loophole since the provincial code does not spell out how severance is handled).

I still say that the OP, AmateurBusinessman, is trolling us. Look at the other 3 threads he has started. Well written posts that border on, or even cross into, the absurd - that or he's doing research for school and not being up front with us.

[Paul]

I do believe we are becoming slaves to the government.

In my opinion, the original intention of the founders was a government to manage ONLY the BIG things in a way more efficient than local and state governments could. However, the federal government has taken on a life of its own, flipping the original intention from serving the people to controlling the people.

All of the services, infrastructure, institutions, currency and banking structures etc that we credit the government for are not gifts to us, they are what we pay for and authorized the government to provide. The government has taken that authority and run amuck, imposing more and more intrusive regulations well beyond what is needed. It is not for the government to decide what is “fair” between workers and employees. That is a function of the free market. Improvements in working conditions and pay were the result of an evolving economy, not necessarily the noble intentions of government. Unions, a function of a free market, were the real driving force for change. Government just codified much of what they accomplished.

So many of the regulations imposed by the federal government really are supposed to be the domain of local and state governments. Regulations and laws should be approved by the people, not arbitrarily imposed by bureaucrats who think they are “enlightened” and know what is best for us.

We need and want government for what it was intended, not with arbitrary powers and authority.

Just my humble opinion.

[Harold Mansfield]

I agree he is trolling us. But it's still a good discussion. We definitely have a long way to go and a lot slips through the cracks, but we've cleaned up a lot. Especially in the last 7 years. Don't know how it works in Canada, but from what I do know the system you have has more good things than bad. Seems to work reasonably well for most. In some areas it's the envy of many countries around the world.

I don't agree that the Government is controlling people by protecting the rights of all people. Equal rights for all doesn't mean less rights for you.
However, if we were to get into things like NSA spying, then yes the government has a lot of 'splainin to do. We've been screwed, but in all honesty we let them do it.

[Fulcrum]

You're right that on the surface things seem to be pretty good up here. I could say the same about the US as an outsider looking in.

We have "free" healthcare, yet the administration costs are so high that I was without a doctor for the last 14 years (only got one because I knew someone). I had to wait 6 months to have a cyst removed from my jaw (lost 3/4 of the bone density which did come back and the cyst doubled in size during the wait). There's a 3 month wait for a simple physical. Specialists are not allowed to go into general/family medicine.

We have now, for the first time, a 2nd generation prime minister (think Bush Sr. and Jr.). He promised to revoke laws that require unions to make their books public and he's started to put the paperwork in motion. He seems to spend more time out of the country and turning every little thing into a photo shoot (its great that he met the first planeload of Syrian refugees to land in Toronto but he shouldn't have made the announcement, to the country, 3 days beforehand).

On the provincial (state) level, we have, in Ontario, a government that has been mired and plagued by controversy and scandal since they first came into power. They spent over $1,000,000,000 (that's BILLION) to cancel and move 2 natural gas electricity generating plants in order to win 2 seats in an election. They seem to have misplaced some emails (sound familiar?) as well. Their former party leader became a lobbyist and all of a sudden the provincial grants, that are supposed to be fair game for all to apply, are only being awarded to companies that have proven to be supporters of the party. I was turned down for a cost of living grant due solely to the fact I've never collected welfare nor employment insurance (or maybe because I'm a single white male that's in his mid 30s - I'm not sure).

Protection of rights? Up here, as long as you're not Christian or Jewish, you're protected. Even if you just immigrated here you don't have to accept the standards that this country has been built upon, all you need to do is claim that those standards violate your human rights and you will get no opposition. Employers don't have their rights protected when it comes down to running their business if they have employees.

When Turboguy and Paul say we, as business owners, are becoming, or already are, slaves to the government, I would have to agree with them - at least in general. I do take safety seriously and would hate to have a serious injury or death on my conscience; however, when I have to guard against what might happen (even though 100 different factors need to have happened first) than I have to guard against them. At what point does an employee's personal responsibility come into play? I had some one, from the government no less, tell me to wear a pair of work gloves when using a drill press and to tie off with a fall arrest harness when going up 4 feet (doesn't matter that the lanyard is 6 feet + stretch). Employees go for drinks or get stoned at lunch? Better pray that they don't destroy that half million dollar machine, which is barely breaking even because it's only running low margin jobs 50% of the time, and leave you in a bind.

We've definitely been screwed and we've, both employers and employees alike, have let it happen. Vote in a guy because he's photogenic and is a good public speaker (when there's a speech to be read), we're just asking for trouble.

[Fulcrum]

Here's an article from Ontario that almost directly proves that we are slaves to our government - providing the legislation passes (it will as they have a majority). One paragraph buried in the middle and the final paragraph explain why this new pension plan is being brought in.

Middle:

But never mind. Suppose the government is right to want to force people to save more. Does it follow they should also be forced to invest those savings through the CPP/ORPP? Why not let them invest their own money, according to their own preferences?

Final paragraph:

What, then, explains the premier’s obsession? A line buried in a recent budget perhaps holds a clue. By “encouraging more Ontarians to save through a proposed new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan,” it reads, “new pools of capital would be available for Ontario-based projects such as building roads, bridges and new transit.” It’s not about “helping” retirees: it’s about financing the premier’s infrastructure ambitions. How strange they do not make this point clearer.

Andrew Coyne: Ontario pension plan not about ?helping? retirees, but financing infrastructure | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-ontario-pension-plan-not-about-helping-retirees-but-financing-infrastructure?ref=yfp)

I'm not bringing these up to go political or to make some sort of stand.

[Harold Mansfield]

Can I just ask that we stop comparing the government that we vote for and can change because we live in a Democracy, to slavery?

[Freelancier]

Can I just ask that we stop comparing the government that we vote for and can change because we live in a Democracy, to slavery?
I worry when people start believing their own hyperbole. It makes any kind of rational discussion impossible.

[Harold Mansfield]

I worry when people start believing their own hyperbole. It makes any kind of rational discussion impossible.

I don't understand. I'm just think it's a little overboard when we start making comparisons to absolutely horrible things like slavery, Hitler or the Holocaust every time we experience a little discomfort or get upset about something.