I suppose I have one free “call you a swine and retreat” card as a result of this.

‘You’re either with us, or against us’
‘Those who did this act will hear from us’ (quote from memory)
‘I’m not saying that they’re the enemy, just on the other side’
‘*Your* president’
‘Family values’
‘Peace with honor’
‘cutting taxes increases revenues’.
‘Acid, amnesty and abortion’
‘There you go again’

Of course it is. The other side is in favor of exploiting the labor to the maximum extent possible. It’s in favor of weekend work, in favor child work, in favor of hiring illegal immigrants, moving the factories to third-world hellholes, you name it.

In fact, that’s the other side’s fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

If your real-life economists don’t know that, then they are imposters. If they do know and try to muddy the water with their so-called ‘arguments’, then they are hired demagogues.

The point of the weekend as a symbolic boon is that there is a right to time off, not that Saturday and Sunday commerce stops. What you’re doing makes me think of reading a law about walking on the street and claiming it doesn’t apply to the legless.

Currently, people can be paid to do undesirable things, like have sex with strangers, even and especially in countries that are pro-union.

They can also be paid to do undesirable things like add columns of numbers. I’d be interested in what you mean by “especially” in regard to your scary prostitution example.

Exactly the misframing of the issue that I was criticizing before. What position exactly are you staking out here, and what are you distinguishing it from? Currently, employers can hire workers to work on the weekends. This is true even in pro-union countries. Currently, people can be paid to do undesirable things, like have sex with strangers, even and especially in countries that are pro-union.

righteous_bubba and abb1: Considering that there were nations before there was conservatism the claim seems false from the outset.

This is different – every nation on earth has some sort of national defense.

Sure, and there were workers who didn’t work on weekends before the existence of unions. See? I can misframe the issue every bit as well as you two can.

abb1: Person, please cite an actual argument on the other side that is not obvious bullshit.

Okay, see the links I gave, from real-life economists.

See, it’s, like, if I said “the earth is round” – and you accused me of not addressing the ‘actual’ arguments on the other side, you know: about the elephants on top of the big turtle.

Well, if your ideological opponents did not believe the earth was a sphere, “the earth is round” would provide a proper framing of the debate. However, if you said, “Vote for [my side] … because the earth really is round!” that would imply that the other side does not believe the earth is round—and if that were not the case, I would make the exact same criticism I did here.

Your original “argument” (and I use the term loosely) is that “unions brought us the weekend” implying that the other side is somehow in favor of “weekend work”, when in reality, your opponents (the ones you don’t actually address) hold no such position—the issue is more complicated than can be phrased in terms of being “for vs. against” weekend work. Sort of like being locked into “did/did not” stop beating wife.

barry: And it ignores the fact that the right seems to prosper using slogans like ‘Conservatives: the folks that brought you national defense’.

To clarify, I’m not here to defend conservatives. And if the right used such a slogan, I’d criticize it on the same grounds. Can you just real quick give me an example of one that similarly misframes the issue by stating opposition to a non-existent position?

Analyses might be complex, but slogans are simplistic.

Yes, I accept that slogans will be simplistic. I do not accept that slogans must frame one side as being opposed to some caricature that doesn’t exist, such as the “anti-national defense” person.

btw, It’s kind of funny how ideologically blinded you guys can get when it stops being an echo chamber here.

“Conservatives: the folks that brought you national defense”

This is different – every nation on earth has some sort of national defense.

Analyses might be complex, but slogans are simplistic.

It doesn’t address the desire of business interests to use labour however and whenever they like?

What if a right-wing meme was: “Conservatives: the folks that brought you national defense”.

Considering that there were nations before there was conservatism the claim seems false from the outset.

Heck, abb1 showed it to me with his request for examples of “anti-union” arguments.

Look at it from the other side: What if a right-wing meme was: “Conservatives: the folks that brought you national defense”. Well, of course, that’s criticizing an argument no one actually supports, and shows ignorance in acting like the left somehow opposed national defense, or that with the left in power, there wouldn’t be national defense.

(And btw, I’m a male “Person”.)

His/her links are trying to argue that the cost of labor is the same sort of expense as corporate profits, but that’s, of course, just silly. Corporation is designed to minimize the labor costs and to maximize the profit; that’s all there is to it. Workers have to fight to increase their share.

Considering that we’ve seen a de-linkage between increased productivity and pay in the US for about 30 years, I have to say that any argument which relies on increasing productivity causing increased pay and benefits is automatically falsified.