NationStates

Caracasus wrote:I love the 'voluntary arrangement' arguments. They so clearly come from someone who has never, ever had to worry about where the next meal is coming from, or the next rent payment.

So your solution to not being able to afford your next meal is to work less and not have the opportunity to work more to get paid more? Cool. Wonder why you're poor.

Next rent payment? Hungary has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world, not sure why they'd care about that. Obviously your primary problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Hungarians live and their financial situation.

Wow I hit some nerves there, didn't I?

Caracasus wrote:Wow I hit some nerves there, didn't I?

Insulting lies tend to do that.

Caracasus wrote:Wow I hit some nerves there, didn't I?

The laughter nerves, most likely.

Telconi wrote:

Caracasus wrote:Wow I hit some nerves there, didn't I?

Insulting lies tend to do that.

Insulting, but not a lie. He didn’t lie about anything. Anyhow I think Trumptonium said he studied finance or whatever, so it’s not a far fetch.

Look, fact is if you're gonna call an employer employee relationship where the employer can demand you work overtime without compensation for 3 years, 'voluntary' the word kind of becomes meaningless. It isn't really voluntary just because you can quit because in the real world people do have bills to pay. Excuse me if I assumed that such an argument probably came from people who didn't have a great deal of experience with stuff like that, and apologies for any offense caused.

Novus Wrepland wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Insulting lies tend to do that.

Insulting, but not a lie. Anyhow I think Trumptonium said he studied finance or whatever, so it’s not a far fetch.

Because studying finance means you come with a silver spoon up your arse.

You can count the people born with a silver spoon up their arse in a non-oligarchic former communist state on one hand.

Novus Wrepland wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Insulting lies tend to do that.

Insulting, but not a lie. Anyhow I think Trumptonium said he studied finance or whatever, so it’s not a far fetch.

It is though, the entire premise that everyone making said argument has never experienced financial hardship is a lie. I myself am contrary proof to that.

Caracasus wrote:Look, fact is if you're gonna call an employer employee relationship where the employer can demand you work overtime without compensation for 3 years, the 'voluntary' the word kind of becomes meaningless. It still isn't really voluntary just because you can quit because in the real world people do have bills to pay. Excuse me if I assumed that such an argument probably came from people who didn't have a great deal of experience with stuff like that, and apologies for any offense caused.

It is voluntary, correct use of the word doesn't make the word meaningless, quite the opposite in fact.

I'd rather not excuse such nonsense, don't make foolish statements about other people, and you'll offend fewer of them.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Because paywalled sources are useful...

Use incognito. Are you new to the internet?

Incognito mode doesn't break down paywalls.

Telconi wrote:

Caracasus wrote:Look, fact is if you're gonna call an employer employee relationship where the employer can demand you work overtime without compensation for 3 years, the 'voluntary' the word kind of becomes meaningless. It still isn't really voluntary just because you can quit because in the real world people do have bills to pay. Excuse me if I assumed that such an argument probably came from people who didn't have a great deal of experience with stuff like that, and apologies for any offense caused.

It is voluntary, correct use of the word doesn't make the word meaningless, quite the opposite in fact.

I'd rather not excuse such nonsense, don't make foolish statements about other people, and you'll offend fewer of them.

A relationship where one party must obey the other or face serious financial hardship isn't exactly voluntary.

Doesn't surprise me at all. He's a wannabe dictator with a bunch of far right wing ideals. No one should be surprised at all, especially his supporters.

Caracasus wrote:Look, fact is if you're gonna call an employer employee relationship where the employer can demand

It is voluntary. They can't demand it. They need your express permission.

Caracasus wrote:It still isn't really voluntary just because you can quit because in the real world people do have bills to pay.

Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Eastern Europe. People on below subsistence incomes of not being able to pay bills for basic goods like utilities are a smaller proportion of society than in Western Europe. This is virtually unheard of. Hence why Eastern Europe like the Czech Republic and Hungary have Gini equality coefficients that put them as rivals to Norway and Sweden. "Rent" is virtually unheard of, in countries like Romania, Poland and Hungary the homeownership rate (outright, not mortgaged) is somewhere above 9 in 10 people.

Lower standard of living stems from low purchasing power, making it relatively hard to buy durable goods on the same level as people in Western Europe. It means working and saving for 2 years to buy a TV and 5 for a 10 year old car. It doesn't mean skipping meals, or running into anxiety that power will shut off or your landlord will kick you out.

The New California Republic wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Use incognito. Are you new to the internet?

Incognito mode doesn't break down paywalls.

Yes it does.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Incognito mode doesn't break down paywalls.

Yes it does.

Really doesn't. FT paywall still there in incognito mode.

Novus Wrepland wrote:

Khataiy wrote:I don't doubt that at all this is a clear attempt to take attention away from French failures with their policies

Polling indicates the policy is extremely unpopular. Specifically by 83 per cent of the population is opposed.

Yeah and who makes these polls? Even if it is unpopular it still isn't slavery or as bad as everyone says

Caracasus wrote:

Telconi wrote:
It is voluntary, correct use of the word doesn't make the word meaningless, quite the opposite in fact.

I'd rather not excuse such nonsense, don't make foolish statements about other people, and you'll offend fewer of them.

A relationship where one party must obey the other or face serious financial hardship isn't exactly voluntary.

Yes it is, the presence of reprocussions doesn't make a voluntary choice not voluntary. and to argue otherwise is preposterous, this would essentially imply that no choice is voluntary, because all choices have reprocussions or consequences.

Telconi wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
A relationship where one party must obey the other or face serious financial hardship isn't exactly voluntary.

Yes it is, the presence of reprocussions doesn't make a voluntary choice not voluntary. and to argue otherwise is preposterous, this would essentially imply that no choice is voluntary, because all choices have reprocussions or consequences.

But there must be a scale of some description, where the repurcussions for one choice over another become so serious that you can't consider it voluntary. I mean, surely you're not suggesting that a bank clerk voluntarily hands over money to an armed robber.

The New California Republic wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Yes it does.

Really doesn't. FT paywall still there in incognito mode.

Delete FT cookies, close your browser, paste the link in incognito mode. Works for all article-limit paywalls.

That withholding pay for up to three years is a shit move.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Really doesn't. FT paywall still there in incognito mode.

Delete FT cookies, close your browser, paste the link in incognito mode. Works for all article-limit paywalls.

I think this is where you have got really confused. FT doesn't have an "article-limit" paywall, it stops you reading any article without a subscription. Hence why your source is useless.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:That withholding pay for up to three years is a shit move.

It is also the end of paid maternity leave and sickdays. Because those are deducted from the overtime you will get paid after 3 years.

I think that there's two key indicators of fascism, from an economic standpoint (not to say a nation cannot be described as fascist without these characteristics): Capitalism which is nationalist in nature, and capitalism which is authoritarian in nature. The former manifests itself in a rejection of the global free market and international finance, in favour of protectionism etc (which ties into other traits of fascism that I'm not gonna bring up here). The latter indicator, which I think is more relevant here, manifests itself when the state actively intervenes in the economy to protect the interests of capitalism (as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and typical right-wing economics), and does so in an authoritarian way. An extreme example of this would be the state using its monopoly on violence to create a workforce of actual slaves, for the benefit of corporations and the capitalist class, which is what Nazi Germany did. A less extreme example would be the legislation in Hungary, I think.
An analysis from an economic standpoint is far from the only indicator of fascism, and if one wanted to describe Hungary as a fascist state, they'd have to provide far more evidence and look at it from angles other than economic, but its certainly a good indicator of the way things are going.

I’m actually in Budapest right now and I saw some protests relating to it on the streets just then

Well, this is a wreck.

So if I, Magyar guy with average Magyar income, were working for a Magyar employer and he "voluntarily demanded" me to work leave-deductible overtime for 3 years without pay, why should I accept?