3 ms·

That was my initial reaction, but the more I think about it—is it really so unreasonable? Right now, we force employees to deal with the burden of ever-changing

That was my initial reaction, but the more I think about it—is it really so unreasonable? Right now, we force employees to deal with the burden of ever-changing real-estate markets. Why not make employers do that? And if it's too much of a hassle for the employer, just pay your employees substantially above the minimum.

imgabe 5y ago
Most people are more than capable of dealing with the burden of managing their personal finances and budgeting. The more responsibility you want to shove off on institutions to take care of for you, the greater you increase your dependence on them and the more susceptible you make yourself to their control.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  I suppose people are poor because they are irresponsible and it's important they remain that way for freedom is an interesting take.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    > I suppose people are poor because they are irresponsible Some of them, certainly > it's important they remain that way for freedom How exactly does deciding on your own desired housing budget force anyone to remain poor?
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Not sure if you're being facetious but "we" don't force anybody to deal with anything. All markets change because people buying something and people selling something have changing ideas of what it is worth when they trade. Business owners are subject to fluctuating prices for everything they buy and sell as well, labor, energy, materials, product... and real-estate of course. The complaint I assume is about transactions affecting someone who is not party to it. I'm not sure how valid that is -- a region based minimum wage effectively already exists due to different costs of living so presumably it could be made to follow some region based formula like the one proposed that is updated every few years... I don't know enough to know whether it would be workable or not, but your force employees argument is not a justification for it.

imgabe 5y ago

Most people are more than capable of dealing with the burden of managing their personal finances and budgeting. The more responsibility you want to shove off on institutions to take care of for you, the greater you increase your dependence on them and the more susceptible you make yourself to their control.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
I suppose people are poor because they are irresponsible and it's important they remain that way for freedom is an interesting take.
- imgabe 5y ago
  > I suppose people are poor because they are irresponsible Some of them, certainly > it's important they remain that way for freedom How exactly does deciding on your own desired housing budget force anyone to remain poor?

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Not sure if you're being facetious but "we" don't force anybody to deal with anything. All markets change because people buying something and people selling something have changing ideas of what it is worth when they trade. Business owners are subject to fluctuating prices for everything they buy and sell as well, labor, energy, materials, product... and real-estate of course. The complaint I assume is about transactions affecting someone who is not party to it. I'm not sure how valid that is -- a region based minimum wage effectively already exists due to different costs of living so presumably it could be made to follow some region based formula like the one proposed that is updated every few years... I don't know enough to know whether it would be workable or not, but your force employees argument is not a justification for it.