>>474894>Refusing to work until you get paid more is fine but if an employer refused to pay you until you work more that would be considered immoral or something.
Employers already do that.
>The people who unironically support forced wealth distribution
Most workers don't have a great choice in what portion they receive from the profits their labor generates - the state protects someone else's right to have an outsized say in how this wealth is distributed. Capitalists support it.
Infrastructure paid for by the public purse is sold off to private enterprises who then charge the public again for the privilege of using it - capitalists largely support it, although some of them take different stances on just how this stuff should be handled.
Good land is sold cheap in sweetheart deals to developers who then make a killing off of the land whose value is created largely by others' contributions to location value, and which is secured by the (publicly paid for) state. Is that the left's fault?
People get up every day and they decide to make decisions which redistribute wealth. The only difference is they redistribute it upwards, and the people on the bottom pay for it.
>Wait who are you even responding to?
The OP. ;P
>Except the recent crime waves are only happening in blue cities that defunded the police and decriminalized petty theft after BLM.
You're right, cities which vote for Democrats would never
have economic stagnation and deadweight real estate speculation.
For your sake, please bother thinking instead of just repeating talking points you got off of twitter.
I'm genuinely curious, now - because I'm looking at a couple recent lists of the most violent cities in the country. I'm completely open to the idea that cities such as Indianapolis, Dayton Ohio, Baltimore MD, Cleveland Ohio, Kansas City MO, have done this - so have they? How about Detroit? These aren't rhetorical questions; if you've got numbers of of increase or decrease and overall budget, it would be interesting to see them.