Literally paying a person for their time. If an employer was stealing money from their employees, why would you have to demonstrate they should have to pay off the debt? There is a measurable financial debt here.
Also, it sets a precedent: if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually. Justice is hard, but not when it comes to hours worked vs hours paid.
If that's the principle involved, then I think, though IANAL, the statute of limitations applies. If my employer from 20 years ago cheated me of some pay, I'm pretty sure he's safe from litigation at this point.
> if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually.
I really hope you're not suggesting that we set a precedent of digging through history to find old debts we might be owed.
The statute of limitations is a law. We are talking about a moral claim that supercedes the text of laws. Remember this is from a time when slavery itself was legal.
Also consider there is no statute of limitations for some crimes including murder.
> I really hope you're not suggesting that we set a precedent of digging through history to find old debts we might be owed.
I think he's more suggesting we not set a precedent of permitting people to benefit financially from atrocities if they can run out the clock.
More important, the statute of limitations is a law that’s established at the discretion of the legislature for policy reasons. There’s no inherent moral right to a statute of limitations
Also, it sets a precedent: if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually. Justice is hard, but not when it comes to hours worked vs hours paid.