> You didn't just say that giving poor people money causes inflation. You said that giving poor people money causes the exact right amount of inflation to cance

> You didn't just say that giving poor people money causes inflation. You said that giving poor people money causes the exact right amount of inflation to cancel out the money you give them. I did not say that. That statement is of course stupidly wrong. I said inflation would rise to the point at which a person with no assets cannot survive without working. That is not the same thing by a large margin. > Do you make minimum wage? If not, why do you work as many hours as you do if you could be "taken care of" working less? Marginal decrease in the utility of money. $100 is worth a lot if you’re broke, a good amount if you have $1000, and basically nothing if you have $1000000. The logic of working extra hours to get extra cash is a function of how much money you have and how much money you will get. If you have enough money (income) to survive, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to work low end jobs for a trivial amount of money. You will not earn enough to accumulate meaningful savings. I might work extra hours on my job if it meant larger rewards. But not linear gains. Heck for me personally I’d rather work 20% less and earn 20% less. Think about it. In scenario A the worker is being kept alive by doing his job. In Scenario B the worker gets $64 in disposable income. Do you think those are equally powerful incentives? Of course they are not. The Scenario B worker needs more incentive to work as hard as the Scenario A worker. The classic “single mom working two jobs” isn’t going to maintain that lifestyle if she doesn’t need to. Not that it’s ideal for a single mom to be working two jobs. I’d much rather we simply raise the minimum wage and pay people to raise kids.