[stonez138]

This view of the world would be so laughable if it wasn't driving many of our policy decisions today. In general, businesses don't operate for long on the goal of screwing over their customers. Only through serving the customers' needs does a business thrive.

I agree that a business must, at least to some degree, serve the customers needs. That in no way stops the business from screwing over their wage slaves, I mean employees.

Do not confuse circumstance due to technology with circumstance due to regulatory regime. We didn't have child labor and long working days due to greedy owners who wanted to rape and pillage the people.

That's your opinion, not fact and not only do I strongly disagree but I find it laughable. I'm going to assume you are just trolling when you actually defended child labor. I'd really like to know where or when it's been documented that child labor is a good thing and prevents things like sexual slavery, since the very same countries that work children in sweat shops consistantly have a thriving sex slave market.

Child labor is just one example capitalists grossly exploiting people.Was it "circumstance due to technology" that led to the Ludlow massacre or the countless other bloody confrontations between the worker and greedy capitalists? Or maybe you just attribute that to rable rousing communists...

Although we disagree, you seem reasonably intelligent so I'm going to assume you are familiar with or have read The Grapes of Wrath. We're the tribulations faced by these people caused by "circumstance due to technology" or greedy capitalists realising that with the abundance of desperate starving people they could pay a fraction of what they used to pay or what was promised. I am also sure you're familiar with the term company store. Was this exploitive practice also caused by "circumstance due to technology" or greed and exploitation?

What you continually seem to miss is the fact that in the free market, a customer must consent to the purchase of the product. If they don't like the rules, they can forego the purchase altogether or seek out another provider.

You alluded to this earlier but is this really an option when so many of us rely on employer provided health insurance?

It wasn't until the 18th century when we really started to see a transition to free markets, and the following 2 centuries led to the greatest advances in living standards the world has ever seen.

This simply is not true. You must mean the greatest advances in WHITE PEOPLES living standards the world has ever seen. From 1350-1950 China and India's gdp per capita remained roughly constant, hovering around $600. In that time Western Europe's gdp per capita increased from $662 to $4,594, a 594% increase! (See The World Economy, A Millenial Perspective, Angus Maddison) Was this great increase in living standards due to technology or exploitation of cheap labor and resources stollen from impovershed people? In 1981 40% of the world lived on 1 dollar a day or less. Today (21st century) today it's 18% and is estimated to fall to 12% by 2015. China's growth alone has lifted more then 400 million people out of poverty the largest reduction that has taken place anywhere, at any time and it's economy has been growing 9% annually for 30 years, the fastest rate for a major economy IN RECORDED HISTORY! (which is a ringing endorsement for communism if you ask me) Pretty amazing how socialized medicine hasn't hamstrung their economy.

On a side note for those that worry China is going to take over America don't ignore the fact that we have 12 nuclear subs each capable of launching 85 attack jets while China is working on their first. The pentagon estimates china has a paltry 20 nuclear missles that can reach the U.S. compared to Americas 9000 intact nuclear warheads and around 5000 strategic warheads. (see "Out of Thier Silos; China and America" The Economist, June 10, 2006)

You assume that such a law is black and white in terms of being applied. Hell, even if a company does not break the law, a lawsuit still costs them a large sum of money in defense costs. So even if the employer does not break the law, it still costs more money to employ a woman thanks to Obama.

Yopu are implying that theres an absolute certaintity that women everywhere are going to begin suing their employers which is simply unfounded. This speaks more to your opinion of women then to anything to do with the law. Do sexual harrasment laws also hurt women and prevent them from being hired, since by and large most harrassment suites are filed by women? Would the work place be better for women if those laws were abolished? Besides that, an employer falsely accused has only to fax his payroll records proving he is paying both genders the same, how is this going to lead to costly litigation?