• rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    you’re thinking of the legal definition of wage theft. This meme is about how all profit is made by stealing the surplus value of workers.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t conflate a legal problem that is already not taken seriously and addressed enough with another thing entirely. Real wage theft is already illegal and pathways to remedy that wage theft exist as long as people take it very seriously. What is described in this meme is also a problem and also needs addressed. However it is entirely, 1000% legal to keep wages low while you rack in rescord profits, and many capitalists would argue that you should. By conflating an actual legal issue wish a subjective moral one, you make it easier to excuse the legal issue as just another subjective moral issue that can be ignored and exploited.

      They are different things that have different remedies and different access to those remedies right now. You’re not strengthening the definition of wage theft to give more power to this new issue. You’re weakening both.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m not going to debate the nuances of propaganda on a meme. I disagree with your assessment, and hope you have a good day.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        Very well said

        This is the kind of meme people point to when they go, “See how stupid the left is? They don’t even know what wage theft is.”

        It does a disservice to workers and the left.

    • calabast@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like the idea behind the comic, but I had the same initial thought as the previous commenter. I think maybe the comic shouldn’t have used a very well known phrase that has a different legal definition.