On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
> and AOC, right?

Was this just "something to say"? Universal healthcare does not make a country socialist, nor would any of those other things. I can't help but look down on Republicans who scream about socialism and seem to have no idea what it is. But that's what they do. None of them have any idea what "critical race theory" is, either, but it has its uses when you want something to yell about.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/27/2022 3:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> This begs the question of the proper
> >> scope of government activity.
> >
> > Certainly. Does anyone believe that
> > legislating and regulating people's
> > private lives lies within the purview
> > of government ?!?
> >
> Almost everyone seems to support
> some type if interference by government
> in people's private lives.

That does not make it right.

dk

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-6, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:

> > Lower taxes
>
> Would "lower taxes" raise enough money
> to cover government obligations now and
> in the future? Can anyone present actual
> numbes?

We already have lower taxes. By any objective measure, more tax cuts are not necessary, wise or helpful. (Target restructuring of methods of tax revenue? Go for it.) But the Republican party's thirst for ever-reduced revenues has no healthy impulse behind it. Instead, it is an addiction that is revived and promoted at every election cycle. As long as they continues with their undeserved reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility, this insanity will see no end. Republican control meals more and greater deficits, a fact that has been true ever since GHW Bush paid for his concern for the nation by losing reelection.

"“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
- Grover-

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> A "job" is an agreement between an
> employer and an employee. All jobs
> have standards which both parties
> are expected to adhere to. There are
> state and Federal labor laws regulating
> this relationship. No one can make me
> work and I am not entitled to a job. That's
> freedom. Contracts determine the working
> condition that have been freely and voluntarily
> agreed to.

You seem to forget most employment
in the US is "at-will" rather than by
contract. Labor protections provided
by state and federal laws are rather
weak, and they are accessible via
lawsuits. If you call this "freedom"
I can sell you bridges in every town
in the US -- and throw in the one in
Brooklyn as a bonus.

> > Perhaps you could explain why no
> > other Western nation takes such a
> > harsh extreme view of employment.
>
> I do not see mutually beneficial
> agreements as harsh or extreme.
>
> > The US is the only Western nation
> > where employment by contract is
> > the exception rather than the norm.

Employment "at will" is not a contract.
Quite the contrary. And it isn't mutually
beneficial, or if it is the benefits are very
asymmetrical. It is far more beneficial for
employers to be able to fire or lay off
employees at will with no consequences
than it is for employees to leave their jobs
with no consequences.

These are just facts of life that do not
quite match the Libertarian narrative.

Sorry, Frank, you are disconnected
from reality.

dk

On 2/27/2022 9:49 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 8:16:28 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> I think people should mean what they say and say what they mean. Sloppy talk reflects sloppy thinking. And I don't believe for a nanosecond that you would excuse such hyperbole coming from someone on the Right.
>
> You're the one who can't forgive it, and insisting that someone else would do the same is no excuse for your own choices.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

On 2/27/2022 9:59 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 9:19:10 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Lower taxes
>> Smaller Federal government
>> strong national defense
>> pro-life (though not uniformly)
>> support for 2nd amendment
>> Conservative social values, meaning slower than Democrats to adopt new social norms.
>> traditional interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
>>
>> Yes, I know these can be distorted into:
>>
>> Not caring about the poor
>> not caring about social justice
>> interventionist, imoerialist foreign policy
>> hatred of women; denial of women's rights
>> not caring about gun victims
>> LGBT hatred
>> etc.
>
> Insisting from the get-go that you are going to be misconstrued really does not help. Why sully what you care about by bringing all this up?

I thought anticipating likely (but really irrelevant) replies might deter them being made. And It was not that "I" was going to be misconstrued (though I don't think that is really the right word). It was that conservative/RP core values as I described them would be distorted.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Just a couple of examples of distortion of conservative views:
>
> The position that marriage should be between men and women (one of each, I guess) has been a standard conservative view. The Left likes to equate this with hatred for LGBT people. Or course, that does not follow and many people who oppose same sex marriage don't hate LGBT people.

It's no distortion of the facts that over the long history of these issues to say that Republicans never showed any interest in a legal status for gay couples outside of the framework of marriage that would grant partner or survivor's rights. The cost for this was lack of health insurance for people during their lifetime a guarantee that the process of dying for any of these people would be a personal disaster. Name me a single Republican who ever stepped up to propose a solution- I'm aware of none. Oh, yes, you can say, "well, sorry, the framework of our government just doesn't have room for you", and then insist that this amounts to no degree of hatred, but the end result is the unnecessary harming of people. Thank God for Anthony Kennedy, whose decision, I have no doubt would come under scrutiny by you and other conservatives here for him overstepping the framework of our legal order. Let's also not forget that the party's traditional values were often the breeding ground for overt homophobia and that the party still caters to a Christian base that believes in all manner of unscientific process to "correct" homosexuality.

Actions speak louder than words. I don't have to accuse conservatives of being hateful towards LGBT people- the long trail of evidence shows that the party and one interest where LGBT people were concerned: just go away.
> Opposition to minimum wage laws is ALWAYS attacked as reflecting no concern for the working poor, while the position is based on the view that minimum wage laws causes the loss of jobs among the very group they are intended to help.

The idea that the sub-poverty level minimum wage is somehow stopping people from making the most of the two or three jobs they have to hold just to pay rent just does not make any sense to me. But if you have a lengthy reference for this argument, I'd be curious to read it.

> Opposition to extensive unemployment benefits because of the disincentive to work that they create.

Taking handouts as primarily a disincentive is not based on any study of actual psychology, and the conceit that it is primarily a matter of math is also a needlessly cold approach. Most studies suggest that people prefer to work and do not take pleasure in taking handouts. Why do libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans always take those in need as malicious actors who want to take advantage of us?

> I could go on, but won't.

Go on, go on.

On 2/27/2022 10:06 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 2/27/2022 3:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This begs the question of the proper
>>>> scope of government activity.
>>>
>>> Certainly. Does anyone believe that
>>> legislating and regulating people's
>>> private lives lies within the purview
>>> of government ?!?
>>>
>> Almost everyone seems to support
>> some type if interference by government
>> in people's private lives.
>
> That does not make it right.
>
> dk
>

Is it "right" for the government to require me to have a driver's license? Doesn't the government (acting on behalf of the people) to prevent me of driving a car when I am incompetent to do so? Isn't that interfering in my private life?

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:18:20 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> I am entitled to any opinion I wish to hold. I may not be entitled to constrain someone else's behavior. I may be if that behavior negatively affects me. A conservative is likely to believe that same sex marriage harms society, therefore himself and so opposed it. That same conservative might totally support civil unions that provide exactly the same (dubious) benefits.

"Dubious" benefits? Wow. Maybe you're just ignorant and disinterested, Frank, but to call these benefits "dubious" is just horribly mistaken.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:47:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/27/2022 10:06 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2022 3:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This begs the question of the proper
> >>>> scope of government activity.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly. Does anyone believe that
> >>> legislating and regulating people's
> >>> private lives lies within the purview
> >>> of government ?!?
> >>>
> >> Almost everyone seems to support
> >> some type if interference by government
> >> in people's private lives.
> >
> > That does not make it right.
>
> Is it "right" for the government to require
> me to have a driver's license? Doesn't

Absolutely, if one is driving on public,
shared roads with other drivers.

> the government (acting on behalf of the
> people) to prevent me of driving a car
> when I am incompetent to do so?

As long as you drive on public roads.
If you drive on private roads on your
vast ranch in Texas, no one should
care, or even know about it.

> Isn't that interfering in my private life?

No it isn't. Driving on public roads is
not just your "private life". Who do we
sleep with on the other hand is a private
matter entirely. It is none of Gregg Abott's
or Ken Paxton's business -- or of any
legislature anywhere in the world.

Your driver license example makes me
wonder whether you are acting dumb
on purpose.

dk

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 9:47:28 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Is it "right" for the government to require me to have a driver's license? Doesn't the government (acting on behalf of the people) to prevent me of driving a car when I am incompetent to do so? Isn't that interfering in my private life?

Driving is a "private" act? Oh, yes, and the minimum wage keeps people poor. I see a pattern.

On 2/27/2022 10:17 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> A "job" is an agreement between an
>> employer and an employee. All jobs
>> have standards which both parties
>> are expected to adhere to. There are
>> state and Federal labor laws regulating
>> this relationship. No one can make me
>> work and I am not entitled to a job. That's
>> freedom. Contracts determine the working
>> condition that have been freely and voluntarily
>> agreed to.
>
> You seem to forget most employment
> in the US is "at-will" rather than by
> contract.

The absence of a written work contract does not mean there are no standards. The continuation of my employment is at-will from my side as well as my employer's.

Labor protections provided
> by state and federal laws are rather
> weak,

How weak or strong they should be is a matter of opinion.

and they are accessible via
> lawsuits. If you call this "freedom"

It is freedom. Freedom does not mean an outcome that you personally like.

> I can sell you bridges in every town
> in the US -- and throw in the one in
> Brooklyn as a bonus.
>
>>> Perhaps you could explain why no
>>> other Western nation takes such a
>>> harsh extreme view of employment.
>>
>> I do not see mutually beneficial
>> agreements as harsh or extreme.
>>
>>> The US is the only Western nation
>>> where employment by contract is
>>> the exception rather than the norm.
>
> Employment "at will" is not a contract.

It is in the interest of employers and employees to treat each other reasonably most of the time. The prevalence of employers abusing employees prevalent in literature and movies is hyperbolic.

> Quite the contrary. And it isn't mutually
> beneficial, or if it is the benefits are very
> asymmetrical. It is far more beneficial for
> employers to be able to fire or lay off
> employees at will with no consequences

Why would employers fire employees for no good reason. Why does an employer "owe" an employee a job?

> than it is for employees to leave their jobs
> with no consequences.
>

Employees voluntarily quit their jobs all the time. It can be quite disruptive to the operations of a firm to lose employees.

I have personally never felt that I was in any way taken advantage of by an employer.

> These are just facts of life that do not
> quite match the Libertarian narrative.
>
> Sorry, Frank, you are disconnected
> from reality.
>
> dk

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-6, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> Your driver license example makes me
> wonder whether you are acting dumb
> on purpose.
> dk

Is the libertarian impulse one where if you can imagine an action unconstrained by the presence of others, then you should have the freedom to act on it?

That's me acting dumb on purpose.

On 2/27/2022 10:42 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Just a couple of examples of distortion of conservative views:
>>
>> The position that marriage should be between men and women (one of each, I guess) has been a standard conservative view. The Left likes to equate this with hatred for LGBT people. Or course, that does not follow and many people who oppose same sex marriage don't hate LGBT people.
>
> It's no distortion of the facts that over the long history of these issues to say that Republicans never showed any interest in a legal status for gay couples outside of the framework of marriage that would grant partner or survivor's rights.

Civil unions were proposed and rejected.

The cost for this was lack of health insurance for people during their lifetime a guarantee that the process of dying for any of these people would be a personal disaster. Name me a single Republican who ever stepped up to propose a solution- I'm aware of none.

That was the purpose of civil unions.

Oh, yes, you can say, "well, sorry, the framework of our government just doesn't have room for you", and then insist that this amounts to no degree of hatred, but the end result is the unnecessary harming of people. Thank God for Anthony Kennedy, whose decision, I have no doubt would come under scrutiny by you and other conservatives here for him overstepping the framework of our legal order. Let's also not forget that the party's traditional values were often the breeding ground for overt homophobia and that the party still caters to a Christian base that believes in all manner of unscientific process to "correct" homosexuality.
>
> Actions speak louder than words. I don't have to accuse conservatives of being hateful towards LGBT people- the long trail of evidence shows that the party and one interest where LGBT people were concerned: just go away.
>
>> Opposition to minimum wage laws is ALWAYS attacked as reflecting no concern for the working poor, while the position is based on the view that minimum wage laws causes the loss of jobs among the very group they are intended to help.
>
> The idea that the sub-poverty level minimum wage is somehow stopping people from making the most of the two or three jobs they have to hold just to pay rent just does not make any sense to me. But if you have a lengthy reference for this argument, I'd be curious to read it.
>

Just google research on the effect of minimium wages. There was one paper years ago that found no effect, but it was retracted by the authors and the journal because of methodological errors.

Also, the vast majority of people who earn at or below poverty level wages are unmarried young people with little work experience. Not heads of families.

>> Opposition to extensive unemployment benefits because of the disincentive to work that they create.
>
> Taking handouts as primarily a disincentive is not based on any study of actual psychology, and the conceit that it is primarily a matter of math is also a needlessly cold approach. Most studies suggest that people prefer to work and do not take pleasure in taking handouts. Why do libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans always take those in need as malicious actors who want to take advantage of us?
>

I've not said a person who takes a bribe not to work has done anything wrong. I just predict that that's what people will do. Or more precisely, that the greater are payments for being unemployed, the greater will bebe unemployed than would otherwise be the case. If this is not common sense, I don't know what is.

>> I could go on, but won't.
>
> Go on, go on.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:00:38 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> I have personally never felt that I was in any way taken advantage of by an employer.

You think that this has some sort of value as evidence?

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:10:05 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Civil unions were proposed and rejected.

Who, what, where, when, why and how? Otherwise an entirely adequate response.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:10:05 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> I've not said a person who takes a bribe not to work has done anything wrong. I just predict that that's what people will do. Or more precisely, that the greater are payments for being unemployed, the greater will be unemployed than would otherwise be the case. If this is not common sense, I don't know what is.

I personally don't think a choice such as this should be based on "common sense", whatever you think that is. There is room here to research this and base choices on what actually produces the best result so that we aren't relying on our belief systems. Unfortunately, to get to that point, some people would have to stop believing so strongly.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:01:09 PM UTC-5, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-6, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your driver license example makes me
> > wonder whether you are acting dumb
> > on purpose.
>
> Is the libertarian impulse one where if
> you can imagine an action unconstrained
> by the presence of others, then you should
> have the freedom to act on it?
>
> That's me acting dumb on purpose.

Sorry, that was directed at Frank B.
Wrong indentation and wrong
quotation. My apologies.

dk

In article <1217a6df-c13f-4db4-88c4-419ef953447bn@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is the libertarian impulse one where if you can imagine an action
>unconstrained by the presence of others, then you should have the
>freedom to act on it?

It's might makes right -- unless you're "the government."

The basic gesture of society per se is the many banding together
against bullying by the strong one or few. We're increasingly
surrounded by people who would abandon this basic gesture, even
declare it immoral.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >
> > Employment "at will" is not a contract.
>
> It is in the interest of employers
> and employees to treat each other
> reasonably most of the time.

In theory. In practice employers
oftentimes try to squeeze as much
work as possible from employess
for as little pay as possible.

> The prevalence of employers abusing
> employees prevalent in literature and
> movies is hyperbolic.

I would appreciate if you could share
what do you drink, smoke, and inhale,
as well as where do you buy or gas.
Oh, I forgot, Texas is full of gas!

I have been an engineering manager,
director, VP and CTO for 3+ decades,
and in more than one country. I never
saw as much abuse, blatant unfairness,
egregious discrimination and harrassment
in any country as I saw in the US. And
note that I work in high tech software
and computer industries, supposedly
the most liberal, progressive and
enlightened on the planet.

> Why would employers fire employees
> for no good reason.

How would one know if the reasons
are good or not absent a contract?

> Why does an employer "owe" an
> employee a job?

Employers do not "owe" jobs. They
have a legal obligation to meet the
obligations of a contract -- when
there is one. Unfortunately, there
is no contract when wmployment
is "at-will".

> > than it is for employees to leave
> > their jobs with no consequences.
>
> Employees voluntarily quit their jobs
> all the time. It can be quite disruptive
> to the operations of a firm to lose
> employees.

Yet another very good reason to have
employment contracts rather than
employment "at-will". The latter is
simply medieval.

> I have personally never felt that I was
> in any way taken advantage of by an
> employer.

Wow! And that makes you the norm
for everyone else? I suppose you
never worked in a meat packing
plant. Or in an Amazon or Walmart
warehouse.

dk

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:55:02 AM UTC-10, MELMOTH wrote:
> This is the time...
> To listen to the three war sonatas of Prokofiev...
> By Youri Boukoff, of course...Who as everyone knows is Koko's favorite
> pianist...

https://gfycat.com/importantnegativeantlion-vivien-leigh

On 2/27/2022 11:19 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:10:05 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> I've not said a person who takes a bribe not to work has done anything wrong. I just predict that that's what people will do. Or more precisely, that the greater are payments for being unemployed, the greater will be unemployed than would otherwise be the case. If this is not common sense, I don't know what is.
>
> I personally don't think a choice such as this should be based on "common sense", whatever you think that is. There is room here to research this and base choices on what actually produces the best result so that we aren't relying on our belief systems. Unfortunately, to get to that point, some people would have to stop believing so strongly.

The behavioral response to price changes, aside from being predicted by economoic threory (what I called common sense), has been abundantly researched.

On another matter altogether, according to a CNN story today less than 1% of vodka consumed in the U.S. is produced in Russia. Stoli and Smirnoff are neither Russian-made nor Russian-owned.

On 2/27/2022 10:50 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:18:20 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> I am entitled to any opinion I wish to hold. I may not be entitled to constrain someone else's behavior. I may be if that behavior negatively affects me. A conservative is likely to believe that same sex marriage harms society, therefore himself and so opposed it. That same conservative might totally support civil unions that provide exactly the same (dubious) benefits.
>
> "Dubious" benefits? Wow. Maybe you're just ignorant and disinterested, Frank, but to call these benefits "dubious" is just horribly mistaken.

All right. I don't remember what I meant by that. I take it back.

On 2/27/2022 10:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:47:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 2/27/2022 10:06 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2022 3:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This begs the question of the proper
>>>>>> scope of government activity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly. Does anyone believe that
>>>>> legislating and regulating people's
>>>>> private lives lies within the purview
>>>>> of government ?!?
>>>>>
>>>> Almost everyone seems to support
>>>> some type if interference by government
>>>> in people's private lives.
>>>
>>> That does not make it right.
>>
>> Is it "right" for the government to require
>> me to have a driver's license? Doesn't
>
> Absolutely, if one is driving on public,
> shared roads with other drivers.
>

Oh, so you retract you statement that it is wrong for others to constrain my private behavior. Good.

>> the government (acting on behalf of the
>> people) to prevent me of driving a car
>> when I am incompetent to do so?
>
> As long as you drive on public roads.
> If you drive on private roads on your
> vast ranch in Texas, no one should
> care, or even know about it.
>

Because my driving on my ranch doesn't affect other people. You need to hone your thinking. We are agreeing that I have a right to do anything I want to the extent it doesn't harm others. It may be a plausible or reasonable, if incorrect, view that some conservatives have that LGBT marriages harm the fabric of society and that therefore should be disallowed. You and I may disagree, but that doesn't make them haters.

>> Isn't that interfering in my private life?
>
> No it isn't. Driving on public roads is
> not just your "private life". Who do we
> sleep with on the other hand is a private
> matter entirely. It is none of Gregg Abott's
> or Ken Paxton's business -- or of any
> legislature anywhere in the world.
>
> Your driver license example makes me
> wonder whether you are acting dumb
> on purpose.
>
> dk

I thought you were. It was clear to me from the beginning that we absolutely agree.

The question under discussion was Republican Party values, but you insisted on make it our values.

On 2/28/2022 12:07 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>
>>> Employment "at will" is not a contract.
>>
>> It is in the interest of employers
>> and employees to treat each other
>> reasonably most of the time.
>
> In theory. In practice employers
> oftentimes try to squeeze as much
> work as possible from employess
> for as little pay as possible.
>

And employees oftentimes try to provide as little effort in doing their jobs as possible. So what?

>> The prevalence of employers abusing
>> employees prevalent in literature and
>> movies is hyperbolic.
>
> I would appreciate if you could share
> what do you drink, smoke, and inhale,
> as well as where do you buy or gas.
> Oh, I forgot, Texas is full of gas!
>
> I have been an engineering manager,
> director, VP and CTO for 3+ decades,
> and in more than one country. I never
> saw as much abuse, blatant unfairness,
> egregious discrimination and harrassment
> in any country as I saw in the US. And
> note that I work in high tech software
> and computer industries, supposedly
> the most liberal, progressive and
> enlightened on the planet.
>
>> Why would employers fire employees
>> for no good reason.
>
> How would one know if the reasons
> are good or not absent a contract?
>
>> Why does an employer "owe" an
>> employee a job?
>
> Employers do not "owe" jobs. They
> have a legal obligation to meet the
> obligations of a contract -- when
> there is one. Unfortunately, there
> is no contract when wmployment
> is "at-will".
>

This is an over simplification. All large firms have employment policies. According to state law (in Texas at least, an at-will state), firms must follow the policies they have set. This is a de facto contract. Federal law also factors in. There are also unions, though not as powerful as they once were. It is an exaggeration to hold that employees have no power in their relationship with employers. The biggest source of power they have is the marketplace, though. The ability to quit a job and seek another.

>>> than it is for employees to leave
>>> their jobs with no consequences.
>>
>> Employees voluntarily quit their jobs
>> all the time. It can be quite disruptive
>> to the operations of a firm to lose
>> employees.
>
> Yet another very good reason to have
> employment contracts rather than
> employment "at-will". The latter is
> simply medieval.
>
>> I have personally never felt that I was
>> in any way taken advantage of by an
>> employer.
>
> Wow! And that makes you the norm
> for everyone else? I suppose you
> never worked in a meat packing
> plant. Or in an Amazon or Walmart
> warehouse.
>
> dk