BigPapaVol
Wave yo hands in the aiya
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 63,225
- Likes
- 14
It is absurd to pretend a government subsidized outfit, that kept out competitors via government subsidy, was somehow successful as a business.
The bottom line is that the pricing was held artificially low for ages because nobody really questioned governmental largesse. Now that they do, it's clearly a disaster and has been since inception.
it's not that cut and dry... for you, having the mutiple skill sets trumped everything... for others it may not... maybe you're under intense family pressure to stay around the mines... maybe your family has sick members where you can't move.
and even if it is that cut and dry, companies still, IMO, should have a legal responsibility to keep its employees safe.
and nobody has questioned government being large throughout the history of the post office???? So since 1775, only recently peope have questioned the largeness of the government??? HAHAHAHAHHAHAH, that's just made up on your end.
and without regulation, the boss has nothing to lose if you die...
look up stats with this country in what many of us would call dangerous working conditions. with regulations,less people die. without them, more people have.
i don't believe that....... the civil war was about government power... but thanks for thinking you know what i believe when you obviously have no clue
This is the source of the whole disagreement.
1. Lets assume that nasty boss is exactly what you say he is. If I work for him, and die. He lost an employee. If Im good at what I do, he lost a good employee.
2. If I die in said job, what has the government regulator lost? Nothing. He will have his bagel and coffee the next morning just the same as the nasty boss.
That nasty boss may not give a rats arse about your health. But thinking that the government cares about you personally, is funny.