Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that were true, you wouldn't have felt the need of working so hard to convince us of it. Markets are not magical devices for good. They are amoral and are perfectly capable of arriving at and persisting in equilibria that are destructive and socially unacceptable. Just as pure democracy is an awful idea, so are extremes of unregulated free-market capitalism.
There are two choices: A or B. Which do you choose?
A) A willing person works for a willing employer at $2 per hour. Both are better off.
B) A person willing to work for $2 per hour is unemployed. An employer willing to hire at $2 per hour has a vacant position because of the law. Both are worse off.
There is no possible argument against it. Here are the choices:
A) A willing person works for a willing employer at $2 per hour. Both are better off.
B) A person willing to work for $2 per hour is unemployed. An employer willing to hire at $2 per hour has a vacant position because of the law. Both are worse off.
Clearly, choice A is preferable to choice B. There is not possible counter argument.
No possible counter argument because you say so The counter argument is that we have a reasonable minimum wage so that employers like Walmart aren't able to turn the low wage job market into a race to the bottom.
I believe that everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living. That includes food, healthcare and shelter plus free education. It is not entitlement. These things would pay for themselves and the net benefit to our society would be massive.
Why? Since when is everyone entitled to free food, healthcare, shelter and education (you do realize these things are not free, right. Others are paying for them they do not pay for themselves nor have a massive net benefit to society as a whole).
We were once a nation in which you earned the basic standard of living, you were not born entitled to it.
Everyone should be entitled the opportunity to pursue, at minimum, a basic standard of living, entitled to the same basic educational opportunities, employment opportunities and housing opportunities within our abilities without discrimination. That is all we should be entitled to.
The way the American welfare system is set up encourages people to be permanent moochers.
1. Getting SS disability can take years. Even if you get back pay by that time you've been kicked out of your home and your credit is ruined. So once people are getting the check they are afraid to work part time out of fear SS will say they aren't really disabled and take their check away.
Solution: greatly reduce the turn around time for the SS process. Consider some time of short term Basic Income for people out of work. Give SS recipients who work more slightly more money than those who don't and have guarantees that disability eligibility won't go away for a set number of years (maybe 4?).
2. Given the low pay and lack of health insurance or paid vacations that most service jobs offer people have no incentive to work and every incentive to get on any welfare available. Why should someone work two part time jobs for $8 an hour and still not be able to afford very basic housing or cars and have no health insurance when they can get on welfare and make more money sitting at home and have great health insurance?
Solution: National minimum wage of $10+ an hour plus all workers have the right to work full time with paid insurance and vacation. For people who are able to work but not employable bring back govt jobs like the Civilian Conservation Core and pay them to improve their communities.
The problem with US welfare is they have set a hard limit on it. Last say this limit is 50k, if you are making $49,999.99, you are eligible. However, if you make just 1 cent more, which 50k, you are not eligible. Because of this hard limit, no one who is eligible for welfare would want to make more and lost the benefit.
Of course, the actual limit is much lower. I don't know what it is, probably probably around 15k/yr.
Welfare should be only gave to the absolute needed. I don't see why any healthy person cannot take a job. Worst, have all the free time in the world cannot acquire a skill.
If someone is on the system who is not a minor senior or disable (blind, missing arm, leg or mental illness) for longer than 5 years, should be kick out. I actually, I have see blind people working in office. So those who are healthy have no excuse. Sorry pal, obesity or diabetes is not a disability.
Welfare should be only gave to the absolute needed. I don't see why any healthy person cannot take a job. Worst, have all the free time in the world cannot acquire a skill.
A person cannot just go to a business and "take a job." All the person can do is fill out the job application. The person can only take a job that has been offered to the person by the employer.
If someone is on the system who is not a minor senior or disable (blind, missing arm, leg or mental illness) for longer than 5 years, should be kick out. I actually, I have see blind people working in office. So those who are healthy have no excuse. Sorry pal, obesity or diabetes is not a disability.
A person cannot just go to a business and "take a job." All the person can do is fill out the job application. The person can only take a job that has been offered to the person by the employer.
Exactly. That's the root of the problem. There aren't enough jobs that pay a livable wage and when one can live as well receiving benefits than they can working, well that's a no brainer. Not everyone is college material and even with a degree wages are depressed and competition huge.
I believe that everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living. That includes food, healthcare and shelter plus free education. It is not entitlement. These things would pay for themselves and the net benefit to our society would be massive.
I believe everyone should be entitled to own a Porsche. If only the Government got involved, Porsches could be mass-produced at a low cost and distributed to everyone. It should be free, because the government would pay for it.
There is no possible argument against it. Here are the choices:
A) A willing person works for a willing employer at $2 per hour. Both are better off.
B) A person willing to work for $2 per hour is unemployed. An employer willing to hire at $2 per hour has a vacant position because of the law. Both are worse off.
Clearly, choice A is preferable to choice B. There is not possible counter argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
No possible counter argument because you say so The counter argument is that we have a reasonable minimum wage so that employers like Walmart aren't able to turn the low wage job market into a race to the bottom.
2sleepy, there are two choices: A and B.
Which do you choose? A or B? Defend your choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The counter argument is that we have a reasonable minimum wage so that employers like Walmart aren't able to turn the low wage job market into a race to the bottom.
