"Git gud" says the CEO as he lights his cigar with a $100 bill.

It's not exactly consensual when one side has vastly more power than the other. If there's a 1000 others for me, then I don't have the power to negotiate up.

Employers are the weaker ones right now because of the labor shortage. THIS is why employers love illegal immigration and open borders: to flood the labor market and give themselves leverage. And this is why the Right tries to limit immigration and stop the race to the bottom. The Left USED to agree with this but totally sold out in order to pack the country with brown people bc the libs think brown = vote Democrat.

Libtards in the EU follow the same principles. They assume Muslims and Africans will be easy left wing lock votes.

Hey, no one's forcing you to sign! You could just starve! Your choice! Har har har.

Poor people in the US are fat as fuck. Nobody is starving.

Not everything that Democrats do is automatically bad.

I mean name 1 thing.

It cannot be that a company gives you a worthless training "worth" $100,000, so you're basically an indentured servant.

nobody would take that job, though. And I know actual cases of this. Like a nurse with a max $15k training reimbursement on a salary over $60k, where the $15k drops every month until it hits 0 at the 1-2 year mark somewhere. The training is always substantially lower than your salary, even at the peak, and it drops pretty fast as long as you don't plan to "get trained then jump ship".

SURE some employers can try to abuse it just like some Ebay sellers can say "I want $500 in shipping for this $10 item" but the solution, like with ebay, is to just say no.

The way it works here is that such training costs are amortized. So your contract says that if you quit within 1 year, you pay back 66%, in 2 years 33% and in 3 years 10%. That seems reasonable.

It's the same way here.

I absolutely prefer the European model to the American one, where I have legally mandated PTO, unlimited "sick days" as you absurdly call them, and an assortment of protections.

If you make decent money, what you will quickly see is its a net losing proposition for you. You can add up the value of what the government gives you, and compare it to your taxes, and it's a huge net loss. In the US you could easily buy your own health insurance with all the money you save in taxes and have plenty left over.

Socialism only really helps the people at the bottom. The unproductive losers. It drags down the winners and boosts up the losers. That's a perverse incentive structure that punishes success and rewards failure. That's not a sustainable system long term if anyone is going to game it. Sure if you have an amazing culture where everyone wants to work hard despite the bad incentive structure, cool, but what if you get flooded with immigrants who give 0 fucks about society and just want to be selfish? Ooops, system breaks down.

One of the secrets of China's success is that that country is BRUTAL with pretty much no welfare state whatsoever, combined with somewhat low taxes. It results in a far more growth-oriented system. The welfare state is like a parasite that drains the life out of the economy. If there was no welfare people would suffer in the short term, but in the longer term GDP would be so huge and there would be so much wealth that it would "solve" poverty even without the forced redistribution.

The issue is that "your contract" isn't much of a choice when you either sign or starve.