4 ms·

Why do you get to decide which businesses should survive? The market decides, just like it sets wages. Your argument is that, if we get rid of welfare, compani

by slibhb 4y ago

Why do you get to decide which businesses should survive? The market decides, just like it sets wages. Your argument is that, if we get rid of welfare, companies will raise wages. So welfare is just taxpayers subsidizing companies. You've constructed an argument to get rid of welfare!

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Government allows the market to exist in a form agreed to via policy. Wages, for example, are set via wage floors.
- slibhb 4y ago
  Oh okay, then let's set the minimum wage to 100K per year. Then everyone can own two cars and a home.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Minimum wage in Australia is $21/hr and their economy is very much functional (besides all of the housing stock soaked up by Chinese investors). I’m not going to argue excessively with someone who’s ideologically driven and putting forth hyperbole (no one is advocating for $100k/year minimum wages), but there is clearly room to arrive at a living wage from where the US is currently at due to a lack of inflation adjustment, via policy.
    - slibhb 4y ago
      So it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $21/hr but a bad thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $50/hr (100k/year). Where is the cut off exactly?
      - paranoidrobot 4y ago
        It's not a single fixed number. It is, or should be, a living wage[1]. Someone in full employment should be able to meet their basic needs and that of any dependants. This includes things like healthcare, housing, food, transport, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
      - defrost 4y ago
        Ahhh .. we had that debate at length 116 years ago in Australia. Harvester Judgement In 1907 Justice Henry Bourne Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, set the first federally arbitrated wages standard in Australia. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins took the pioneering approach of hearing evidence from not only male workers but also their wives to determine what was a fair and reasonable wage for a working man to support a family of five. It's been modified and tweaked a few times since but the minimum wage (in a G-20 country with AAA credit rating and consistently performent GDP, good health and education, etc) is generally bench marked to support food and housing for an atomic family unit. I dare say central north america might make some movement there within a century or two.
darth_avocado 4y ago
Well getting rid of welfare will not force the market to raise wages, it will only add to the human misery and exploitation. People need to live, in order to live, they need money. Remove welfare and you’re just opening up more abuse and exploitation. The right solution here would be for the government to enforce minimum wages in a way that is reflective of the true cost of living in a local setting. No exceptions.

by slibhb 4y ago

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Government allows the market to exist in a form agreed to via policy. Wages, for example, are set via wage floors.

slibhb 4y ago
Oh okay, then let's set the minimum wage to 100K per year. Then everyone can own two cars and a home.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Minimum wage in Australia is $21/hr and their economy is very much functional (besides all of the housing stock soaked up by Chinese investors). I’m not going to argue excessively with someone who’s ideologically driven and putting forth hyperbole (no one is advocating for $100k/year minimum wages), but there is clearly room to arrive at a living wage from where the US is currently at due to a lack of inflation adjustment, via policy.
  - slibhb 4y ago
    So it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $21/hr but a bad thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $50/hr (100k/year). Where is the cut off exactly?
    - paranoidrobot 4y ago
      It's not a single fixed number. It is, or should be, a living wage[1]. Someone in full employment should be able to meet their basic needs and that of any dependants. This includes things like healthcare, housing, food, transport, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
    - defrost 4y ago
      Ahhh .. we had that debate at length 116 years ago in Australia. Harvester Judgement In 1907 Justice Henry Bourne Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, set the first federally arbitrated wages standard in Australia. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins took the pioneering approach of hearing evidence from not only male workers but also their wives to determine what was a fair and reasonable wage for a working man to support a family of five. It's been modified and tweaked a few times since but the minimum wage (in a G-20 country with AAA credit rating and consistently performent GDP, good health and education, etc) is generally bench marked to support food and housing for an atomic family unit. I dare say central north america might make some movement there within a century or two.

darth_avocado 4y ago

Well getting rid of welfare will not force the market to raise wages, it will only add to the human misery and exploitation. People need to live, in order to live, they need money. Remove welfare and you’re just opening up more abuse and exploitation. The right solution here would be for the government to enforce minimum wages in a way that is reflective of the true cost of living in a local setting. No exceptions.