On 5/31/2010 7:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/30/2010 6:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:


No, restrictions on the employer interfere with the negotiations.

Further, the restrictions apply to the applicant also. For example,
an applicant cannot demand to being paid less than the minimum wage
or insist on not wearing the government-mandated safety helmet.



Why do you again change the subject? Now you are talking about some
hypothetical "freedom" to "demand" lower wages or reduced safety on
the job? Next I suppose you might argue for the "freedom" for
criminals to rape and pillage your family with total immunity. Don't
you realize that what you are arguing for is not consistent with a
government or with an organized soceity? It is total absence of
government, e.g. anarchy. I can't figure out if you are perverse or
truly ignorant. In either case, your positions are non-starters.

Hmm. Maybe your newsreader skips things.

I was answering a question ("How does that change the basic fact that anyone
in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for?").

My point was that, due to government interference, there are restrictions on
hiring, both on the putative employer and the prospective employee. These
restrictions can prevent a willing employer and a willing employee from
negotiating a mutually beneficial arrangement.



You haven't mentioned people like me and thee who work for themselves. I
gave up on the corporate world of quota hiring and Affirmative Action a
few decades ago. I work for who I please and when I please especially
when someone says please by waving hundred dollar bills under my nose.
Does that make me a ho?

TDD