At the risk of being over-pedantic, we shouldn’t be calling that theft. I’m not condoning it but we should call it what it is
What the article calls “direct theft” is clearly theft
But the article also describes market manipulation like union busting as theft. That’s clearly a problem and I don’t know what to call it but we lose impact by equating this legal exploitation with clearly illegal theft
As my teens are getting their first jobs, I’ve talked to them about “direct theft” and other abuses common to minimum wage employers. I’m proud that one stood up for himself when his manager started trying to abuse his conscientiousness
It is theft though: they are taking something that would otherwise belong to someone else (the wealth difference that would have been accumulated), and they’re keeping it for themselves. That fits the definition of theft. The method may be more indirect, but the end result is the same. Inventing euphemistic terms to describe something that can be described with a simple existing word, will only end up muddying the waters in my experience.
I mostly agree - people love to overcomplicate certain terms. Theft is theft.
The only edge case to this is theft to survive/have a basic level of dignity, which I believe deserves special recognition. It’s a problem for our society to solve and it is within our means to do so.
When somebody lives in extreme lack, hunger, thirst, untreated illness, and/or an inability to provide for themselves or those they care for - they physically can’t think clearly. They also likely see a society that does not care about them. It hardens their heart.
People living in lack, worrying about their survival or basic dignity, is not desirable for a healthy society.
At the risk of being over-pedantic, we shouldn’t be calling that theft. I’m not condoning it but we should call it what it is
What the article calls “direct theft” is clearly theft
But the article also describes market manipulation like union busting as theft. That’s clearly a problem and I don’t know what to call it but we lose impact by equating this legal exploitation with clearly illegal theft
As my teens are getting their first jobs, I’ve talked to them about “direct theft” and other abuses common to minimum wage employers. I’m proud that one stood up for himself when his manager started trying to abuse his conscientiousness
It is theft though: they are taking something that would otherwise belong to someone else (the wealth difference that would have been accumulated), and they’re keeping it for themselves. That fits the definition of theft. The method may be more indirect, but the end result is the same. Inventing euphemistic terms to describe something that can be described with a simple existing word, will only end up muddying the waters in my experience.
I mostly agree - people love to overcomplicate certain terms. Theft is theft.
The only edge case to this is theft to survive/have a basic level of dignity, which I believe deserves special recognition. It’s a problem for our society to solve and it is within our means to do so.
When somebody lives in extreme lack, hunger, thirst, untreated illness, and/or an inability to provide for themselves or those they care for - they physically can’t think clearly. They also likely see a society that does not care about them. It hardens their heart.
People living in lack, worrying about their survival or basic dignity, is not desirable for a healthy society.