5 ms·

If you, as a company, can't exchange full time work for an amount of money that keeps an individual out of poverty, you're forcing the rest of society to cover

If you, as a company, can't exchange full time work for an amount of money that keeps an individual out of poverty, you're forcing the rest of society to cover the difference. That's not a deal any government, or any taxpayers, should want to be a part of. I don't want my taxes subsidizing profitable corporations because they can find people willing to work for sub-poverty wages who fill in the gaps using the welfare state.

bhupy 8y ago
But isn't using welfare to fill in the gaps the most efficient solution? A well functioning market drives down the cost of goods and services to the minimum possible price, provided there's adequate competition. Commoditization is a good thing. The fact that bread and milk only cost a few dollars is net-good for society. Commoditization of labor should, thus, also be similarly good for society. At the end of the day, we as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. As long as we make sure that markets are competitive via regulation and that everything is commoditized, this sounds like a welfare problem and not a wage problem.
- fabricexpert 8y ago
  That's not what actually happens though. The rich avoid the tax and push for tax reduction and the poor don't get the welfare they need.
  - bhupy 8y ago
    Are you suggesting that welfare can never work?
    - fabricexpert 8y ago
      Not on it's own. You can't rely on free market + welfare and everything is fine. You need a number of levers to support those that might be marginalized by your system, defense in depth.
- bostik 8y ago
  > * But isn't using welfare to fill in the gaps the most efficient solution?* If you need welfare to cover the cost of living for full-time workers, then that is very much corporate welfare.
  - bhupy 8y ago
    By that logic, any welfare is corporate welfare. Single payer healthcare paid for by taxpayers allows corporations to not provide their employees health insurance benefits. For sure, that's one way to look at it, but the rest of my comment lays out why welfare is the least bad way to maintain standard of living.

bhupy 8y ago

But isn't using welfare to fill in the gaps the most efficient solution? A well functioning market drives down the cost of goods and services to the minimum possible price, provided there's adequate competition. Commoditization is a good thing. The fact that bread and milk only cost a few dollars is net-good for society. Commoditization of labor should, thus, also be similarly good for society. At the end of the day, we as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. As long as we make sure that markets are competitive via regulation and that everything is commoditized, this sounds like a welfare problem and not a wage problem.

fabricexpert 8y ago
That's not what actually happens though. The rich avoid the tax and push for tax reduction and the poor don't get the welfare they need.
- bhupy 8y ago
  Are you suggesting that welfare can never work?
  - fabricexpert 8y ago
    Not on it's own. You can't rely on free market + welfare and everything is fine. You need a number of levers to support those that might be marginalized by your system, defense in depth.
bostik 8y ago
> * But isn't using welfare to fill in the gaps the most efficient solution?* If you need welfare to cover the cost of living for full-time workers, then that is very much corporate welfare.
- bhupy 8y ago
  By that logic, any welfare is corporate welfare. Single payer healthcare paid for by taxpayers allows corporations to not provide their employees health insurance benefits. For sure, that's one way to look at it, but the rest of my comment lays out why welfare is the least bad way to maintain standard of living.