3 ms·

I don't follow the similarity between my argument and your question on hiring discrimination, so I'm not actually sure what is being related here. Anyway, the

by NhanH 11y ago

I don't follow the similarity between my argument and your question on hiring discrimination, so I'm not actually sure what is being related here. Anyway, the government already subsidized certain demographics, for one way or another (various types of welfare, and the population also support a bunch of subsidize that doesn't exists right now: parental leave comes to mind). In essence, it's not a question of "do" or "do not", it's just matter of deciding where to draw the line. Another distinction is that not all discrimination and welfare discussion is about economic, a lot of policies have to do with moral, ethics and general humanity. With those constraints in mind, the consideration change a lot. The original argument I was replying to was purely economic. If you want to make a moral argument of "people need job to have self actualization and feel good about themselves", then it's not a common argument around here, and certainly worth considering, but completely different.

mc32 11y ago
The parallel is in saying that inefficiencies should be avoided and that companies should be allowed to pursue savings wherever they can. If so, if they can skirt the system by hiring cheaper labor and creating unemployment for those lower skilled workers, then if we don't care about employing lower skilled workers but compensate them with alternative means (basic income, etc) then why not address other ills the same way? Don't address the root of the issue, just subsidize it away.
- NhanH 11y ago
  For the original discussion, subsidizing is addressing the root issue (distribution of wealth problem), there is also the solution proposed a hundred years ago by some guys name Marx and Engels ... The example you brought up with women being paid 80 cent on the dollar is a whole can of worm that I'm not willing to open right now. Let's just put it simply that I think that specific issue is more complicated and one of the biggest difference is that it has more than just straight up economic consideration.

by NhanH 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

The parallel is in saying that inefficiencies should be avoided and that companies should be allowed to pursue savings wherever they can. If so, if they can skirt the system by hiring cheaper labor and creating unemployment for those lower skilled workers, then if we don't care about employing lower skilled workers but compensate them with alternative means (basic income, etc) then why not address other ills the same way? Don't address the root of the issue, just subsidize it away.

NhanH 11y ago
For the original discussion, subsidizing is addressing the root issue (distribution of wealth problem), there is also the solution proposed a hundred years ago by some guys name Marx and Engels ... The example you brought up with women being paid 80 cent on the dollar is a whole can of worm that I'm not willing to open right now. Let's just put it simply that I think that specific issue is more complicated and one of the biggest difference is that it has more than just straight up economic consideration.