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 minimum wage laws interfere, for better or worse, with the market right?
So why aren't you all fighting zoning or property restrictions?
You know, restrictions that say a house must be x ft^2 big, an apartment must hold less than y amount of people, or even trailer park restrictions.
Humans do have a need for shelter, but with all these restrictions, the price of shelter is inflated, thus leading to the federal government offering financial assistance for the poor and the elderly which many of you either request or complain about.
A person doesn't need much space to live.
A place to sleep, a place to defecate, a place to cook food, a place to wash, and a place for some personal effects can be built as small as 100 sq ft.
Both the landlord and employer could maximize profits. Those complaining about welfare taxes would see their paycheck increase. Those complaining about the poor not being able to afford necessities would clamor for the increase in standards of living. The rich would have even more available real estate to purchase. Everyone will be happy, except maybe for the claustrophobic poor.
The minimum wage laws interfere, for better or worse, with the market right?
I suppose, if you view the market as something with which one interferes. I don't believe it's something particularly sacrosanct, but for the sake of discussion, yes.
Quote:
So why aren't you all fighting zoning or property restrictions?
I like my view.
Quote:
Humans do have a need for shelter, but with all these restrictions, the price of shelter is inflated, thus leading to the federal government offering financial assistance for the poor and the elderly which many of you either request or complain about.
Possibly, but I'll take the way things are now over hovels and shantytowns.
Although you bring up an interesting point about the elderly. In some cultures it's pretty much a given that the immediate family includes grandma and grandpa. That's not so much the case in ours. If it was, that would probably save the government some money. It'd still have to come from somewhere, though, so it might affect the economy adversely in other ways.
But there aren't any zoning laws and property restrictions keeping granny from moving in.
Quote:
A person doesn't need much space to live.
A place to sleep, a place to defecate, a place to cook food, a place to wash, and a place for some personal effects can be built as small as 100 sq ft.
As ridiculously large as the houses in the neighbourhood where I work are, 100 square feet is just as ridiculous in the other direction. Sounds like Brave New World or The Caves of Steel or THX-1138 to me. I'm more of a Starfleet/Earth Alliance kind of guy.
Quote:
Both the landlord and employer could maximize profits.
Yippee.
Quote:
Those complaining about welfare taxes would see their paycheck increase.
No, it would just go to increased sanitation to deal with the diseases breaking out of your hovels and shantytowns.
Quote:
Those complaining about the poor not being able to afford necessities would clamor for the increase in standards of living. The rich would have even more available real estate to purchase. Everyone will be happy, except maybe for the claustrophobic poor.
So, how 'bout it?
Let's do it! I have a hankerin' for Soylent Green anyway!
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57822
As a former business owner I often wished there was no minimum wage so I could have made a better living for my family, but I didn't fight against it. I just worked harder and hired less people. I am also unhappy about many other government regulations, especially those that interfere with property rights, but I don't fight them. I do vote for those that support my views to the greatest extent, but it's a losing battle here in the Seattle area.
After nearly 30 involved in local government I'm still trying to figure out how zoning inflates the cost of housing. It may protect property values by directing certain types of buildings to certain areas but what I've found is that buildings are built to fulfill a real or perceived need. The price one pays to use those buildings is driven by supply and demand.
If you had said building codes you might have an argument.
The minimum wage laws interfere, for better or worse, with the market right?
So why aren't you all fighting zoning or property restrictions?
You know, restrictions that say a house must be x ft^2 big, an apartment must hold less than y amount of people, or even trailer park restrictions.
Humans do have a need for shelter, but with all these restrictions, the price of shelter is inflated, thus leading to the federal government offering financial assistance for the poor and the elderly which many of you either request or complain about.
A person doesn't need much space to live.
A place to sleep, a place to defecate, a place to cook food, a place to wash, and a place for some personal effects can be built as small as 100 sq ft.
Both the landlord and employer could maximize profits. Those complaining about welfare taxes would see their paycheck increase. Those complaining about the poor not being able to afford necessities would clamor for the increase in standards of living. The rich would have even more available real estate to purchase. Everyone will be happy, except maybe for the claustrophobic poor.
So, how 'bout it?
How about you notice that such fights go on ALL THE TIME.
After nearly 30 involved in local government I'm still trying to figure out how zoning inflates the cost of housing. It may protect property values by directing certain types of buildings to certain areas but what I've found is that buildings are built to fulfill a real or perceived need. The price one pays to use those buildings is driven by supply and demand.
If you had said building codes you might have an argument.
I suppose, if you view the market as something with which one interferes. I don't believe it's something particularly sacrosanct, but for the sake of discussion, yes.
I like my view.
Possibly, but I'll take the way things are now over hovels and shantytowns.
Although you bring up an interesting point about the elderly. In some cultures it's pretty much a given that the immediate family includes grandma and grandpa. That's not so much the case in ours. If it was, that would probably save the government some money. It'd still have to come from somewhere, though, so it might affect the economy adversely in other ways.
But there aren't any zoning laws and property restrictions keeping granny from moving in.
As ridiculously large as the houses in the neighbourhood where I work are, 100 square feet is just as ridiculous in the other direction. Sounds like Brave New World or The Caves of Steel or THX-1138 to me. I'm more of a Starfleet/Earth Alliance kind of guy.
Yippee.
No, it would just go to increased sanitation to deal with the diseases breaking out of your hovels and shantytowns.
Let's do it! I have a hankerin' for Soylent Green anyway!
Oh, look, we have one of the worshipers at the altar of planned economies.
The minimum wage laws interfere, for better or worse, with the market right?
So why aren't you all fighting zoning or property restrictions?
You know, restrictions that say a house must be x ft^2 big, an apartment must hold less than y amount of people, or even trailer park restrictions.
Humans do have a need for shelter, but with all these restrictions, the price of shelter is inflated, thus leading to the federal government offering financial assistance for the poor and the elderly which many of you either request or complain about.
A person doesn't need much space to live.
A place to sleep, a place to defecate, a place to cook food, a place to wash, and a place for some personal effects can be built as small as 100 sq ft.
Both the landlord and employer could maximize profits. Those complaining about welfare taxes would see their paycheck increase. Those complaining about the poor not being able to afford necessities would clamor for the increase in standards of living. The rich would have even more available real estate to purchase. Everyone will be happy, except maybe for the claustrophobic poor.
So, how 'bout it?
I have made the conscious choice to live where there are no planning and zoning laws. However, as a small business owner I do not have the privilege of choosing whether or not I wish to participate in the minimum wage law.
I suppose I could just get a job and be a wage slave all my life, but I have an entrepreneurial spirit and enjoy being a business owner - creating my own destiny. Making my own choices about what I want to do for a living.
Every person should be free to pay what the employee is WORTH to them. Many "minimum wage" employees are not worth the money they are paid.
20yrsinBranson
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.
