That's sorta been the problem. Nobody ever stepped in and sorted out a _way_ to do common things. Sure, Microsoft's way isn't always the best. It's full of holes and quirks. But at least it's something. It's sorta like Ruby on Rails. It might not be the best way to write web apps, but it says to you: This is how we do it. Period. So you don't have to support 8 different ways of doing the same damn thing...
Read your sig, btw. Liberty is economic security. If you lack economic security you'll do whatever the guy with money tells you to do. Sooner or later you'll get hungry enough. You'll break. Everyone does. Hunger and poverty make animals out of us all...
Oh, your position is that they are delusional rather than just whiny?
No. If anything is "delusional" [not my choice of word], it's the idea that workers in a pure capitalist economy can simply "find a new job that pays them what their time is worth." Further, that a preference can only be expressed between available options and that to characterise not choosing a non-existent option as a "revealed preference" is odd.
If people think their time is worth more than their current salary, they should go find a new job that pays them what their time is worth. Most people don't, so we have a revealed preference
No one offered them that new job that pays them what their time is worth (obviously, since no one can afford to pay them what their time is worth). So no, not a revealed preference.
In a free market people don't exchange something of lessor value for something of greater value.
Sure they do, specifically people sell their time for less than they think it is worth (and are often deeply unhappy about it) and necessarily for less than it is worth to their employer. Realistically there's not much choice as to whether we work or not and even if it's an exchange which is formally free. The situation is not symmetrical with our other decisions where our freedom to exchange (or not to) may be more real.
If I hire you do a job, I do so because I value the "work" less [more?] than my money....
Yes and when I hire people for a job (eg. the plumber yesterday) I do so on the same basis. However, this is because my income is not dependent on exploiting the difference in the cost of labour and its value.
If my income were dependent on hiring workers to generate value I could only afford to pay them more than the value they add to my business if my products could fetch a price above their value. However since people making consumption decisions are far freer than people selling their labour I will have to rely on paying my workforce less than the value they add. (Which is mellon's point).
As I keep reminding my teenage kid
I don't trust Tesla not to drop me like a rock when it's no longer profitable to support me...
The idea is that you pay more than what the work is worth to the worker
Where, since one is compelled to work, what "the work is worth to the worker" is defined by what you pay them. Quite.
OP's point still stands, you must necessarily pay the worker less than the value the worker adds for you. I'm not sure, however, that the macroeconomic conclusion he draws from this observation is well founded.
Dealers stock parts and provide a distribution network for said parts. This is why my '94 Honda Accord still runs (and why my Volvo 240 DL would have been running if that $#%@! hadn't rear ended me).
If we remove the dealer who is going to stock parts, deliver them, and install them? I'm sure you can come up with a thousand free market answers, but the fact is running that sort of business is _expensive_. Most of the obvious solutions become races to the bottom. Eventually either you stop getting parts and service for cars after 5 years or your start getting gouged in ways you can only imagine.
So yeah, it's a bit more complex an issue then just: Dealers Bad! Tesla Good!....
I know it's fashionable to blame Detroit's problems on the Evil Tax And Spend Democrats (tm), but even a cursory glance at the facts proves it otherwise.