John Murtha --- Traitor

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

The fact is, if government was small, big business would simply “replace” it. And the crooks their are equally as bad, if not worse.

I agree. Although they already have, to an extent, because of how powerful they are.

Big Business is NOT powerful.

If they cannot get a government to force you to do something (only possible with a big government) they cannot do shit.

Government is gun-to-your-head powerful.

Big Business is serve-you-or-perish not powerful.

To utter again and again that them big companies are all evil and have way too much power does not makle it so.

Well, I don’t know about Austria. But Big Business is very powerful in AMERICA. Both parties cater to big business. Big Business provides massive amounts of funding and financing. They don’t ‘run’ the government like some conspriacy theorists think, but they do have a tremendous influence in getting bills get passed.

Even moreso in the exact drafting of bills. Politicans pay great attention to the interests of big business, and it factors into many aspects of what they do. If you’d worked for a United States Senator like I have, you’d realize this.

So they influence politicians, because those politicians ARE powerful because of Big Government.

Why would Big Business bother to buy politicians if they could do it on their own?

So what? Whether they can do it on their own is irrelevant. The point is because they have great influence [money and power] they are very accomplished at getting laws passed that serve their interest. And politicians do [not always but often] subordinate the interests and well-being of other segments of society because of the disporporionate influence Big Business wields. Corporations are not lawmakers, but because of their power to have the government cater to them, as a practical matter, they’re often able to act as such. If we had a WEAKER government and less regulation, Big Business would be able to act more directly. As it is, they still do a pretty good job of getting their agenda through.

If Big Business is evil by nature, why do you propose to give them a big government (with military/police/courts) with which to enforce their will?

Wouldn’t it maybe be just a smidgen better to keep them (or anyone) from having such power?

A mixed economy is simply potting soil for Fascism. Since we have a mixed economy, we are doomed. Let’s hope after the collapse that humanity gets its ‘Third Chance’. The Founding Fathers tried giving us a second chance, but left the door open for letting government become part of the economy. Whoops, bad move boys!!

[/quote]

I never said big business is evil in nature. Just that they wield a disproportionate influence and are catered to. That’s reality. It’s not always adverse to the interests of indiviudals and other segments of society. But sometimes it IS. That is also reality.

42

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

So what? Whether they can do it on their own is irrelevant. The point is because they have great influence [money and power] they are very accomplished at getting laws passed that serve their interest. And politicians do [not always but often] subordinate the interests and well-being of other segments of society because of the disporporionate influence Big Business wields. Corporations are not lawmakers, but because of their power to have the government cater to them, as a practical matter, they’re often able to act as such. If we had a WEAKER government and less regulation, Big Business would be able to act more directly. As it is, they still do a pretty good job of getting their agenda through.

Well then explain to me what Big Business could possibly do to me without the aid of the government.

The point is, they have no legal way to force me to do anything.

What is Wal-Mart going to do?

Not sell me shitty sweaters?

You are right that in a mixed economy it allmost makes no difference, which is why people cry capitalism! when they mean government interference in favor of big companies which is neither capitalism, free trade or classic liberalism.

[/quote]

The point is that government CATERS to big business. Corporations are not legislators. So, they can’t directly ‘force’ individuals to do anything. The government relies on the funding and support from big business, so THEY pass legislation that big business sponsors. Big business uses the government. It’s exactly the same thing.

The government can’t just tell them to go to hell. They rely on their support. What exactly aren’t you getting? It’s not like Big Business holds all the power in America by any means. But if you think there’s ever going to be a system where those who have the money won’t hold a disporportionate influence–whether you want to call it pure capitalism, free trade, or classic liberalism–you’re really sleeping at the wheel. Still, in my opinion we have the best system there is even if there are plenty of flaws.

43

Traitor? What? He did something for the good of the United States? I always thought he was an enemy of the US. When did he turn?

44

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

The point is that government CATERS to big business. Corporations are not legislators. So, they can’t directly ‘force’ individuals to do anything. The government relies on the funding and support from big business, so THEY pass legislation that big business sponsors. Big business uses the government. It’s exactly the same thing.

The government can’t just tell them to go to hell. They rely on their support. What exactly aren’t you getting? It’s not like Big Business holds all the power in America by any means. But if you think there’s ever going to be a system where those who have the money won’t hold a disporportionate influence–whether you want to call it pure capitalism, free trade, or classic liberalism–you’re really sleeping at the wheel. Still, in my opinion we have the best system there is even if there are plenty of flaws. [/quote]

I agree with you, I just like to be very clear on this issue.

What you describe is what a lot of people call capitalism even though it is a socialism infected version of it.

So, a lot of people who critisize “capitalism” and think they are socialists, liberals etc, really detest government intervention and just don`t know it.

If you identify the problem correctly the answer is less government with less powers and keeping an eye on big companies.

If you don?t, you probably want more
government regulations, giving companies even more reasons to bribe politicians.

And, as you say yourself, economic power itself is harmless unless it can be transferred into political power.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

The point is that government CATERS to big business. Corporations are not legislators. So, they can’t directly ‘force’ individuals to do anything. The government relies on the funding and support from big business, so THEY pass legislation that big business sponsors. Big business uses the government. It’s exactly the same thing.

The government can’t just tell them to go to hell. They rely on their support. What exactly aren’t you getting? It’s not like Big Business holds all the power in America by any means. But if you think there’s ever going to be a system where those who have the money won’t hold a disporportionate influence–whether you want to call it pure capitalism, free trade, or classic liberalism–you’re really sleeping at the wheel. Still, in my opinion we have the best system there is even if there are plenty of flaws.

I agree with you, I just like to be very clear on this issue.

What you describe is what a lot of people call capitalism even though it is a socialism infected version of it.

So, a lot of people who critisize “capitalism” and think they are socialists, liberals etc, really detest government intervention and just don`t know it.

If you identify the problem correctly the answer is less government with less powers and keeping an eye on big companies.

If you don?t, you probably want more
government regulations, giving companies even more reasons to bribe politicians.

And, as you say yourself, economic power itself is harmless unless it can be transferred into political power.
[/quote]

It’s a nice thought, but who is going to keep an eye on the big companies in absence of governmental regulation? In practice, there has been no one whose really been able to. Government is responsive to the interests of individuals because the have to be to ge elected even though they also look out for business interests and often still subordinate the interests of individuals to business interests. What you speak of has been tried, and it doesn’t work. There was once a laissez-faire movement in America. The Supreme Court even interpreted freedom of contract as a fundamental, natural right at one time in our history. It felt that it wasn’t the place of the Justices to regulate the companies. And it struck down many efforts of Congress to do so as unconstitutional. Except the problem was that ‘freedom of contract’ was a fallacy. People who needed jobs had no room or leverage to bargain and challenge employers. And you know what such lack of regulation and congressional oversight led to? It led to exploitation, child labor, subsistence wages, and unsansitary and dangerous working conditions. These all still exist in other areas of the world that are poor enough [or where the government is corrupt enough that there is NO distribution of resources] that children reall DO need to work. OR in countries whose systems of government are so weak and lacking in oversight that those in power can totally subordinate those who are weaker.

Some minimal regulation does not transform a free-market system into a socialist republic. It makes it better. It tempers it and allows the economic and other benefits while preventing exploitation, to some degree.

If you honestly question this, you need to do some homework and look at how the implementation of the laissez-faire philsophy fared as a practical matter in different countries around the world.

46

[quote]derek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why do you always have to throw insults into your posts? I suggest you consult your physician.

Yeah, the “sheep/sheeple” thing is getting old too.

Time for a new punchline.
[/quote]

Cry me a river you pair of whiners. My usual tagline is “spin”, pay attention.

Also, Nuthunter, as usual you cry and whine instead of addressing the actual issues raised.

Why might that be?

47

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

It’s a nice thought, but who is going to keep an eye on the big companies in absence of governmental regulation? In practice, there has been no one whose really been able to. Government is responsive to the interests of individuals because the have to be to ge elected even though they also look out for business interests and often still subordinate the interests of individuals to business interests. What you speak of has been tried, and it doesn’t work. There was once a laissez-faire movement in America. The Supreme Court even interpreted freedom of contract as a fundamental, natural right at one time in our history. It felt that it wasn’t the place of the Justices to regulate the companies. And it struck down many efforts of Congress to do so as unconstitutional. Except the problem was that ‘freedom of contract’ was a fallacy. People who needed jobs had no room or leverage to bargain and challenge employers. And you know what such lack of regulation and congressional oversight led to? It led to exploitation, child labor, subsistence wages, and unsansitary and dangerous working conditions. These all still exist in other areas of the world that are poor enough [or where the government is corrupt enough that there is NO distribution of resources] that children reall DO need to work. OR in countries whose systems of government are so weak and lacking in oversight that those in power can totally subordinate those who are weaker.

Some minimal regulation does not transform a free-market system into a socialist republic. It makes it better. It tempers it and allows the economic and other benefits while preventing exploitation, to some degree.

If you honestly question this, you need to do some homework and look at how the implementation of the laissez-faire philsophy fared as a practical matter in different countries around the world.[/quote]

That is to complex an issue to go into in detail, but what you believe will happen if “laisez faire” policies were adopted, cannot happen unless you argue that every laisez faire economy degenerates.

Child labor and long hours were considered to be an improvement back then by the workers (and are now in developing countries) because the alternative was subsistence agriculture, child prostitution or death.

Capitalism is not to blame for the situation it found in Europe and still finds in some nations, but it does an awesome job of making those workers world a better place.

The only process that actually can raise workers income is the process of capital deepening that works faster than population growth, meaning the average worker has more and more machinery at his disposal to be more productive.

Any laws that “prevent” exploitation slow that process down, make poverty last longer and lead to unemployment.

The very idea that laws can in any way create wealth that is than distributed is absurd, it can only take the money away from the capitalist which he was about to invest.

That however means eating the seed corns, making future harvests smaller.

48

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Traitor? What? He did something for the good of the United States? I always thought he was an enemy of the US. When did he turn?[/quote]

LOL! :slight_smile:

49

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

It’s a nice thought, but who is going to keep an eye on the big companies in absence of governmental regulation? In practice, there has been no one whose really been able to. Government is responsive to the interests of individuals because the have to be to ge elected even though they also look out for business interests and often still subordinate the interests of individuals to business interests. What you speak of has been tried, and it doesn’t work. There was once a laissez-faire movement in America. The Supreme Court even interpreted freedom of contract as a fundamental, natural right at one time in our history. It felt that it wasn’t the place of the Justices to regulate the companies. And it struck down many efforts of Congress to do so as unconstitutional. Except the problem was that ‘freedom of contract’ was a fallacy. People who needed jobs had no room or leverage to bargain and challenge employers. And you know what such lack of regulation and congressional oversight led to? It led to exploitation, child labor, subsistence wages, and unsansitary and dangerous working conditions. These all still exist in other areas of the world that are poor enough [or where the government is corrupt enough that there is NO distribution of resources] that children reall DO need to work. OR in countries whose systems of government are so weak and lacking in oversight that those in power can totally subordinate those who are weaker.

Some minimal regulation does not transform a free-market system into a socialist republic. It makes it better. It tempers it and allows the economic and other benefits while preventing exploitation, to some degree.

If you honestly question this, you need to do some homework and look at how the implementation of the laissez-faire philsophy fared as a practical matter in different countries around the world.

That is to complex an issue to go into in detail, but what you believe will happen if “laisez faire” policies were adopted, cannot happen unless you argue that every laisez faire economy degenerates.

Child labor and long hours were considered to be an improvement back then by the workers (and are now in developing countries) because the alternative was subsistence agriculture, child prostitution or death.

Capitalism is not to blame for the situation it found in Europe and still finds in some nations, but it does an awesome job of making those workers world a better place.

The only process that actually can raise workers income is the process of capital deepening that works faster than population growth, meaning the average worker has more and more machinery at his disposal to be more productive.

Any laws that “prevent” exploitation slow that process down, make poverty last longer and lead to unemployment.

The very idea that laws can in any way create wealth that is than distributed is absurd, it can only take the money away from the capitalist which he was about to invest.

That however means eating the seed corns, making future harvests smaller. [/quote]

Very well put. Most people do not think in dynamic terms, do not have a future orientation. They see poverty and blame the system which would reduce poverty.

50

[quote]vroom wrote:
derek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why do you always have to throw insults into your posts? I suggest you consult your physician.

Yeah, the “sheep/sheeple” thing is getting old too.

Time for a new punchline.

Cry me a river you pair of whiners. My usual tagline is “spin”, pay attention.

…[/quote]

Don’t forget “cheerleaders”.

I am surprised you stole one from the conspiracy nuts. You must be slipping.

51

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

It’s a nice thought, but who is going to keep an eye on the big companies in absence of governmental regulation? In practice, there has been no one whose really been able to. Government is responsive to the interests of individuals because the have to be to ge elected even though they also look out for business interests and often still subordinate the interests of individuals to business interests. What you speak of has been tried, and it doesn’t work. There was once a laissez-faire movement in America. The Supreme Court even interpreted freedom of contract as a fundamental, natural right at one time in our history. It felt that it wasn’t the place of the Justices to regulate the companies. And it struck down many efforts of Congress to do so as unconstitutional. Except the problem was that ‘freedom of contract’ was a fallacy. People who needed jobs had no room or leverage to bargain and challenge employers. And you know what such lack of regulation and congressional oversight led to? It led to exploitation, child labor, subsistence wages, and unsansitary and dangerous working conditions. These all still exist in other areas of the world that are poor enough [or where the government is corrupt enough that there is NO distribution of resources] that children reall DO need to work. OR in countries whose systems of government are so weak and lacking in oversight that those in power can totally subordinate those who are weaker.

Some minimal regulation does not transform a free-market system into a socialist republic. It makes it better. It tempers it and allows the economic and other benefits while preventing exploitation, to some degree.

If you honestly question this, you need to do some homework and look at how the implementation of the laissez-faire philsophy fared as a practical matter in different countries around the world.

That is to complex an issue to go into in detail, but what you believe will happen if “laisez faire” policies were adopted, cannot happen unless you argue that every laisez faire economy degenerates.

Child labor and long hours were considered to be an improvement back then by the workers (and are now in developing countries) because the alternative was subsistence agriculture, child prostitution or death.

Capitalism is not to blame for the situation it found in Europe and still finds in some nations, but it does an awesome job of making those workers world a better place.

The only process that actually can raise workers income is the process of capital deepening that works faster than population growth, meaning the average worker has more and more machinery at his disposal to be more productive.

Any laws that “prevent” exploitation slow that process down, make poverty last longer and lead to unemployment.

The very idea that laws can in any way create wealth that is than distributed is absurd, it can only take the money away from the capitalist which he was about to invest.

That however means eating the seed corns, making future harvests smaller. [/quote]

Uh, yeah. Child labor laws and minimum wage were improvements. Fought tooth and nail by corporations. Accomplished through government regulation. I am not talking about EXCESSIVE regulation. You have not identified any true laissez-faire societies that are thriving. What are they? And they have no regulation of busines conduct? Which to you seems to preclude capitalism. Is that what you’re saying?

It’s not at all the case. You are not describing the true laissez-faire, absoulte hands off ideal. Because that has never worked. Im not sure what any of that talk about laws creating wealth at the end of your post is about. I surely said nothing of the kind. Laws do not create wealth. But minimum wage laws do prevent exploitation and subsistence labor. You’ve produced no evidence that establishing a minimum threshold prolongs poverty nor can you.

52

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Uh, yeah. Child labor laws and minimum wage were improvements. Fought tooth and nail by corporations. Accomplished through government regulation. I am not talking about EXCESSIVE regulation. You have not identified any true laissez-faire societies that are thriving. What are they? And they have no regulation of busines conduct? Which to you seems to preclude capitalism. Is that what you’re saying?
[/quote]

the laissez faire economy has worked in England, where it has brought us the industrial revolution and abolished child labour and long working hours in the course of a few decades while the population still doubled.

The reason of the extreme poverty was that population had doubled between 1400-1700 whereas productivity staid roughly the same.

This means of course that child labour was a product of FEUDALISM.

The reason why it was England where exceptionally weak kings, i.e an allmost nonextistent government. The average part of state spending of the GNP back then was less than 10%.

In the US it was less than 2% as late as 1900.

There is your LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMY.

Combine that with the British “free trade” doctrine and productivity skyrocketed.

The ideas alone that child labor laws abolished child labor or that minimum wage laws actually raise wages longterm are the economic equivalents of a fairy tale.

So sorry, it is not possible, it is up there with walking on water.

What you are describing is the equivalent of an economic perpetuum mobile.

Can I make it any clearer that it logically impossible?

There were Doctors at that time that were very much against child labour and testified that those children probably had it worse at home than at the factory.

The other side of the story:

Oh my God, the kids doing the real dirty stuff were actually more or less state slaves:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=337&sortorder=articledate

Oh no, those minimum wage laws seem to hurt those they were to help!

Could that be the reason for high structural unemployment in most of Europe?

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget “cheerleaders”.

I am surprised you stole one from the conspiracy nuts. You must be slipping.[/quote]

It’s comforting to know that somebody is paying attention!

54

[quote]vroom wrote:
derek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why do you always have to throw insults into your posts? I suggest you consult your physician.

Yeah, the “sheep/sheeple” thing is getting old too.

Time for a new punchline.

Cry me a river you pair of whiners. My usual tagline is “spin”, pay attention. [/quote]

I find the less attention I pay to your posts the happier I am (this post notwithstanding).

55

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Uh, yeah. Child labor laws and minimum wage were improvements. Fought tooth and nail by corporations. Accomplished through government regulation. I am not talking about EXCESSIVE regulation. You have not identified any true laissez-faire societies that are thriving. What are they? And they have no regulation of busines conduct? Which to you seems to preclude capitalism. Is that what you’re saying?

the laissez faire economy has worked in England, where it has brought us the industrial revolution and abolished child labour and long working hours in the course of a few decades while the population still doubled.

The reason of the extreme poverty was that population had doubled between 1400-1700 whereas productivity staid roughly the same.

This means of course that child labour was a product of FEUDALISM.

The reason why it was England where exceptionally weak kings, i.e an allmost nonextistent government. The average part of state spending of the GNP back then was less than 10%.

In the US it was less than 2% as late as 1900.

There is your LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMY.

Combine that with the British “free trade” doctrine and productivity skyrocketed.

The ideas alone that child labor laws abolished child labor or that minimum wage laws actually raise wages longterm are the economic equivalents of a fairy tale.

So sorry, it is not possible, it is up there with walking on water.

What you are describing is the equivalent of an economic perpetuum mobile.

Can I make it any clearer that it logically impossible?

There were Doctors at that time that were very much against child labour and testified that those children probably had it worse at home than at the factory.

The other side of the story:

Oh my God, the kids doing the real dirty stuff were actually more or less state slaves:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=337&sortorder=articledate

Oh no, those minimum wage laws seem to hurt those they were to help!

Could that be the reason for high structural unemployment in most of Europe?

[/quote]

Uh, yeah: "In England, Parliament was averse to legislating on subjects relating to workers because of the prevailing policy of laissez-faire. The earliest factory law (1802) dealt with the health, safety, and morals of children employed in textile mills, and subsequent laws regulated their hours and working conditions.

An act of 1833 provided for inspection to enforce the law. Young mine workers were first protected in 1842, women in 1844. Although labor unions were legalized in 1825, agreements among their members to seek better hours and wages were punishable as conspiracy under the common law until they were legalized in 1871 and 1906.’

This is not about poverty. Child labor and other things we consider barbaric today really WAS necessary in prior times. The point is that they persisted after far outliving their usefulness. Despite the fact that many thought they should be abolished.

It took governmental regulation to end it in England like everywhere else. People will continue to act in their self-interest at the expense of others unless they are prevented from doing so. The standard of living has been so much worse for so many in every single country that hasn’t passed laws establishing a minimum floor.

Obviously, it’s not perfect and it can clearly swing too much in the other direction. Like he welfare state. But America doesn’t have a welfare state anymore. Welfare is now only offered for a limited amount of time, and it is tied to job training. Eventually those in the program are forced to work.

But they’re given some training and aid in finding job and have some temporary help to get them on their feet. I don’t have any desire to argue about it anymore. I’m not gonna shake your worldview. There are kernels of good and truth there, but I find it hopelessly misguided and extremist to the degree you take it.

56

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

It took governmental regulation to end it in England like everywhere else. People will continue to act in their self-interest at the expense of others unless they are prevented from doing so. The standard of living has been so much worse for so many in every single country that hasn’t passed laws establishing a minimum floor.

[/quote]

You don’t understand Capitalism and free markets. In LF, workers will gravitate to the employer(s) that treat them better. The employer who abuses his workers loses his best and is left with the dregs. His product line suffers in quality, he loses his market and either changes or goes out of business.

If this doesn’t happen fast enough, that’s the price of progress. We all want nirvana but you have to let the free market work or you wind up with the Soviet Union.

My high school has low pay and minimal benefits. We lose teachers like crazy. (I’m lucky because my wife is loaded and makes big money besides.) Capitalism at its finest!

57

[quote]orion wrote:
…
the laissez faire economy has worked in England, where it has brought us the industrial revolution and abolished child labour and long working hours in the course of a few decades while the population still doubled.

…
[/quote]

Don’t forget the lovey things they did to the Thames!

Face it, a small amount of government regulation is needed to keep big business from abusing the employees and the environment.

The difficulty is keeping the government small and making sure the government does not become an abuser as well.

58

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

But they’re given some training and aid in finding job and have some temporary help to get them on their feet. I don’t have any desire to argue about it anymore. I’m not gonna shake your worldview. There are kernels of good and truth there, but I find it hopelessly misguided and extremist to the degree you take it.
[/quote]

It is not extremist, it is radical.

Ad fontes, to the roots, radical.

Any government intervention in the economy costs us a little bit of money and a little but of freedom.

I think this is undeniable.

Since there are a lot of do-gooders out there who know exactly how to spend other peoples money and also think it is perfectly okay to vote on other peoples money I think my kind of radicalism is defendable.

Would you rather be radically free or moderately enslaved?

Moderation is not allways a virtue especially when it comes to socialism vs capitalism.

One system works the other one doesn`t.

When confronted with fairy tales there is no middle ground.

Half of a tooth fairy is not moderation it is playing along with delusions because the deluded got the guns and the numbers.

I don?t think I will be able to convince you, but if our economic systems should collaps into a great depression it was the result of one political compromise too many.

You cannot outvote reality or find a moderate middle ground with it.

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You don’t understand Capitalism and free markets. In LF, workers will gravitate to the employer(s) that treat them better. The employer who abuses his workers loses his best and is left with the dregs. His product line suffers in quality, he loses his market and either changes or goes out of business.[/quote]

And your understanding is obviously a little bit removed from the reality of the situation.

Spare us the grade school theory. Things are a bit more complex where the rubber hits the road.

What you describe are “forces” that can exert a corrective influence, but it will be realized only in situations where it is safe and or easy such that the “force” is strong enough to overcome the resistance required to act.

Historically, switching jobs, commuting large distances and so on were all much harder to achieve than they are today.

There are many things a free market is not good at. For those that jerk off to the concept of a free market, you have to realize it is the government use of power, regulating fair trade and business practices as well as criminal laws, that enables a free market.

It is never going to be a pure “frictionless” environment like all the ivory tower theories use in their introductory level analysis.

I don’t think anybody will say it has no effect, but you have to look at the liquidity of the market in question. When they are in fact alternative jobs available what you describe will happen. When there are no jobs, or other things make shifts harder to do, then things start to break down.

Come down from your ivory tower Sherlock.

60

[quote]vroom wrote:

There are many things a free market is not good at. For those that jerk off to the concept of a free market, you have to realize it is the government use of power, regulating fair trade and business practices as well as criminal laws, that enables a free market.
[/quote]

Nonoe ever denied that. There are minarchists and anarchists, you are talking about the latter.

Noone ever claimed that. Where do you get that from?

[quote]
I don’t think anybody will say it has no effect, but you have to look at the liquidity of the market in question. When they are in fact alternative jobs available what you describe will happen. When there are no jobs, or other things make shifts harder to do, then things start to break down.

Come down from your ivory tower Sherlock.[/quote]

The “liquidity” of the market “Sherlock” is part of the market.

If there are no other jobs in your area, the jobs that are are better than none.

If you do not have to move to find a job that is an economic benefit you may pay for in lower wages.

None of this is exploitation, just the market at work.