This is fairly ruthless towards the victims of this ideology - those that live in the communities left literally destroyed after manufacturers pulled out and those trapped in chronic unemployment.

You can use emotive and loaded terms all you want (slavery, indentured servitude, exploitation), but the real-world negative human consequences and rather racist outcomes of these ideals are on full display for everyone to see.

It's only ruthless in the US which couldn't care about people and doesn't provide them with safety nets.

> You can use emotive and loaded terms all you want

Says the person talking about "ruthless destruction". I don't use emotive and loaded words.

> the real-world negative human consequences and rather racist outcomes of these ideals are on full display for everyone to see.

In the US? Of course. However, the moment you look at the world not through US-tinted glasses, it turns out that:

- you can provide minimum living wage to your citizens

- you can provide healthcare to your citizens

- you don't have to force a large portion of your citizens into barely surviving

Minimum wages still cause many of those negative human outcomes (chronic unemployment, lower mobility, rural towns full of unemployed people, and so on) even with safety nets. Safety nets + no minimum wages would provide a much better humanitarian outcome than safety nets + minimum wages.

And even if it didn't (which it does) this ideology is still responsible for significant human suffering and racist outcomes in the US right now, and is being pushed by zealots irrespective of this suffering.

This is fairly typical of ideologies, no matter the actual human toll, the ideological vision must come first. I suggest you to visit a town that has faced factory closures and see the actual human toll to make this all a little less abstract.

Leaving the discussion here, my friend.