the pay debate in one place to save time in the future.
Because liberals have a hive mind, and I am sick of having the same discussion, with the same points raised over and over, in the same order, using the same words, and would rather cut and paste the rebuttals from here, rather than typing them again and again.
( long-winded )
( long-winded )
Once your economy is issuing everyone participation tokens for being a human being, then businesses can pay them whatever actually makes sense - whatever their actual value is - and it doesn't matter if that's 2p an hour. And the potential workers can decide if they want that or not without the threat of not having food making them take bad deals.
I have been similarly banging my head against people who seem to think under UBI you still need a minimum wage because of some kind of 'dignity' thing about 'how dare you say my time is worth that little'. Those people seem to think that companies have a magical money spigot which everyone is just being mean by not turning on for their employees.
(Government _does_ have a magical money spigot in most countries - it causes inflation, i.e. diluting the money/savings of the productive and prudent, if they turn it on too hard, but the current situation in Europe is verging on risking _deflation_, so they could turn it on a bit more if Germany wasn't determined to keep it off due to old hyperinflation fears and wanting to keep its captive export market.)
Reply
My actual preference is something akin to a dormitory that offers 3 hot meals and a room. Takes all comers and is heavily policed, that offers educational and work opportunities, and transportation assistance. Basically, I prefer a defined and provided minimum lifestyle to going down the rabit hole of "X people are having to do Y thing, and that's terrible. "
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I really dislike the entire concept of minimum wage, a BLS, or any such similar schemes/scams, because they all suffer from a key economic flaw: all such plans amount to price support legislation, where labor is the commodity under discussion. If you've studied economics at more than the platitude level, then you are aware of what that means. Because labor is legislatively priced at higher than the optimum market price, consumers (in this circumstance, employers) will consume less of it, resulting in an increase in unemployment. Under a BLS scheme, this therefore also increases the burden on the taxpayer base... which is always, always going to be the working public. ("But just raise the taxes on businesses to pay for it, since they're not employing enough people!" For the slow-of-thinking who would use this argument, remember, businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them. If you raise taxes on a business, they simply pass the increase in costs along to the consumer, since taxes are a part of the cost of doing business.)
Personally, I'd advocate getting the government completely out of the business of social charity. It's going to be painful to do so now, since a century of leftist domination of our government structures has pretty much completely dismantled the mechanisms we had in place, but honestly, the longer we hold out against that course, the more painful it's going to be. It's also going to become inevitable at some point - the present course is simply unsustainable over the long term, and that term is daily growing shorter.
Reply
The only problem with misspending would be in the event of minor children whose parents spend their allocation on heroin.
*Also, as a resident of a developing country, I could spend a day comparing living standards of "people in poverty" in the US compared to here. I'd love to see how long some lazy-ass hipster "homeless guy" lasts in this country.
Reply
Also, as a resident of a developing country, I could spend a day comparing living standards of "people in poverty" in the US compared to here. Preachin' to the choir, here. I grew up in several of those "developing countries" (some of them have managed the trick in the intervening years, some are... still developing) and I'd personally love to toss the complainers on a slow boat to wherever... steerage. Or maybe working passage, on a tramp freighter.
Heh. Or we could always ship 'em to Lagos. The 419 boys would have stripped down to nothing in a matter of hours.
Reply
My plan is much simpler: If you don't get a job and earn a living wage, you either starve to death, or rely on the kindness of others. But the government will not have anything to do with it.
Anything that gives money away encourages slackers, lowlifes, criminals, and government abuse. Always has, always will. You can not point to a single case where this has not happened.
When charities and local communities are the ones giving out the money -voluntarily- they are a lot more discriminating about who gets it and why.
And as for people who 'can not work'. That's pretty much bull, except for maybe a small tiny minority of people who have been so seriously injured to the point where they are barely able to function.
Before we had welfare and all these other handouts, those people were taken care of, and the slackers all worked because they didn't want to starve. We need to bring that back.
Reply
The trope that irritates me the most that lefties like to push is the old, "Right wingers don't support abortion, but they also don't want to give welfare to single parents." I always reply, "No, right wingers actually want people to think like adults and have a mind on the future consequences of their action so that they don't have the unplanned pregnancy and feed the billion dollar Abortion Machine in the first place."
Reply
Next time someone tries that on you, ask them this:
Chelsea clinton and a welfare recipient both get pregnant and want abortions, does their relative wealth change whether or not you feel they should be permitted to have one?
Same pepple get pregnant, both want to keep them, soes their relative wealth impact whether you believe they should be kidnapped, strappes to a tavle and have an abortion forcivly performed?
When they answer "no" to both, point out that the issues of welfare and abortion are not connected in their *own* minds, so the attempt to connect them is dishonest.
Reply
Next time someone tries that on you, ask them this:
Chelsea clinton and a welfare recipient both get pregnant and want abortions, does their relative wealth change whether or not you feel they should be permitted to have one?
Same pepple get pregnant, both want to keep them, soes their relative wealth impact whether you believe they should be kidnapped, strappes to a tavle and have an abortion forcivly performed?
When they answer "no" to both, point out that the issues of welfare and abortion are not connected in their *own* minds, so the attempt to connect them is dishonest.
Reply
Next time someone tries that on you, ask them this:
Chelsea clinton and a welfare recipient both get pregnant and want abortions, does their relative wealth change whether or not you feel they should be permitted to have one?
Same pepple get pregnant, both want to keep them, soes their relative wealth impact whether you believe they should be kidnapped, strappes to a tavle and have an abortion forcivly performed?
When they answer "no" to both, point out that the issues of welfare and abortion are not connected in their *own* minds, so the attempt to connect them is dishonest.
Reply
Leave a comment