I thought it was apt. The only problem is that I myself imply that there's a such thing as a "good" slaver, but to assert that an employer is justified by their existence and corporate strategy to reduce their employees to chum is comparably distasteful.
GP's point at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13757973, where they illustrate a few externalized costs, which also seem reasonable to criticize, received pushback that companies don't have to do nothin' for their employees but reap the profits, which is a bad position to take, IMO.
People use the term "un-American" too much these days, but the person I was responding to went way beyond that into anti-civilization.
There is no way that the person I was replying to could possibly be a slaver, so I wasn't attacking them personally. I was connecting their position to that of slavers who would just as soon let their slaves die in the fields from overwork, dehydration, or any number of other things that "shouldn't be the boss' responsibility."
GP's point at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13757973, where they illustrate a few externalized costs, which also seem reasonable to criticize, received pushback that companies don't have to do nothin' for their employees but reap the profits, which is a bad position to take, IMO.
People use the term "un-American" too much these days, but the person I was responding to went way beyond that into anti-civilization.
There is no way that the person I was replying to could possibly be a slaver, so I wasn't attacking them personally. I was connecting their position to that of slavers who would just as soon let their slaves die in the fields from overwork, dehydration, or any number of other things that "shouldn't be the boss' responsibility."