3 ms·
Yes, that's what we've decided as a modern society. If you're too old, too young or too unhealthy to be a productive member of society, a civil society will p
by bryanlarsen 2y ago
Yes, that's what we've decided as a modern society. If you're too old, too young or too unhealthy to be a productive member of society, a civil society will provide you with the basics of life anyway.
And it's not black or white. There are lots of people who can contribute a little, but cannot contribute their full share. But we've set up the rules in a way that makes it very difficult for them to work and contribute. If you have income, your welfare often gets cut off completely. That's counter-productive. There are lots of people who should be able to get some of their income from work and some from welfare, and that's the way things should be, a gradual change from "all from welfare" to "all from work".
- scotty79 2y agoHe wasn't talking about subsidizing people. Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. Society might subsidize inefficient people because of humanity. Subsidizing inefficient unproductive companies is just dumb.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago> Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. That's a direct subsidy to people assuming that too little subsidy is supplemented with welfare or food stamps. It may also be an indirect second-order subsidy to a company, but it is first and foremost a subsidy to people.
- vidarh 2y agoIt's a subsidy to people, but it's the indirect subsidy to companies by allowing them to lean on people being underpaid and have society pick up the bill that is a problem. You can "fix" that problem by eliminating welfare, or by ensuring companies pay enough. Since most of us don't want people to starve, either we're stuck with the problem, where we're distorting the market in a way that incentivizes behavior that harms society, or we level the playing field by ensuring companies pay enough.