9 ms·
Sure, I agree with the goal (wealth distribution), but not the means, because forcing companies to pay above market wages just makes the companies non-competiti
by jaredklewis 10y ago
Sure, I agree with the goal (wealth distribution), but not the means, because forcing companies to pay above market wages just makes the companies non-competitive. Any jobs it gives to Americans will be lost long term when the company goes under.
The means I support would be raising taxes on rich people, then using that money for a UBI or (given that is a kind of pipe dream) subsidizing programs that benefit lower classes and the elimination of taxes of taxes that effect the lower classes most.
As to why it's good to have our companies be competitive? Lots of reasons. For one, our retirement funds, endowments and such depend on it. Further, a US based company outsourcing labor still creates more US jobs than a company wholly overseas. And those things contribute to the general health of the economy, which is important to the ever growing service sector of the US economy.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoI agree that wealth distribution via taxes and UBI would be ideal, but I don't think it would ever get through our incredibly troubled political system. >forcing companies to pay above market wages just makes the companies non-competitive. I interpret this differently. Before outsourcing and union busting of the 70s and 80s, laborers made a very decent living doing basic work, and the companies made a profit. When those companies outsourced, their profits went through the roof because they exploited the lower cost of living and lack of environmental and labor laws. By bringing those jobs back into the US, the companies wouldn't be paying above market wages. They would be forced to give their fair share of the corporate earnings to the employee. Things are too skewed against the lower class right now.