I don’t understand this line of reasoning. So if someone supports one aspect of a particular political party, they’re required to adopt any and all views of that party? Is he also boxed in on abortion / gay marriage issues?
Saying that the burden of promoting general welfare is better carried on the shoulders of government as opposed to individual employers does not seem to be disingenuous in the least.
Counselor, NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 345-46, wherein the Supreme Court announced that replacing striking workers with permanent replacements did not run afoul of the NLRA so long as it was not motivated by anti-union animus, has been the law of the land since 1938. And that the NLRA itself only dates back to 1935.
Yes, and just to be clear, I purposely am not using the term “government” because it divorces the issue from the people who are actually paying the tab-- us, the taxpayers.
Note that an added advantage to my system is that it can be progressive. Right now, everyone pays the Minimum Wage “tax” because everyone purchases goods affected by it. If the safety net were provided from the general fund, we’d have the opportunity to make it progressive. As long as we don’t do something stupid like fund it by a sales tax.
You know, for all your fevered talk, I don’t think it takes moving heaven and earth to become a paralegal or a nurse practitioner or a plumber. It does take some perseverance and some initial sacrifices, but still well short of heroic.
So I am not too worried about “automat[ing] away all ‘unskilled’ work? And then everyone can upskill and we can all be white-collar executives earning great money.” Just as we seemed to upskill away from scavengers or cave-painters without fomenting a Bolshevik revolution.
So how then do you explain the Bolshevik revolution, the French revolution and so on?
Oh, and when all the ‘unskilled’ become plumbers or paralegals then plumbers and paralegals will be the new minimum wage earners. That’s the point I was making.
The problem is that at one time this was possible. After WWII the populace came home to an industrialized powerhouse that represented 75% of all the heavy manufacturing in the World. It was a one-time situation that will never be repeated. We as a nation thought this was the status quo for each generation to follow.
Not only was this a one-time event it happened during a time when a high school education meant something in the United States. The labor force was well skilled.
Gee, that’s a great point, because when I think of constitutional democracies in industrialized market economies with robust systems of public assistance, the very first two things that come to my mind are the ancien regime and Tsarist Russia. So, obvi, if those two societies were torn apart by changing demands for labor skills, what other conclusion could we draw about our own.
Yes, the first thing an unemployed and/or underemployed person should do is take stock of their skills, gain new ones if possible, and see if they can improve things. I think we on the liberal side of the tracks take that as a GIVEN. We do not stop there, however. We think it’s also reasonable to ask if society is organized optimally for the success and well-being of all its members, rich and poor. In the case of capitalism, the answer is clearly, “NO! NO! NO!!!” So we ask how things can be better organized. See how that works?
Human nature doesn’t change and people don’t like massive inequality. They never have and it’s led to countless civil wars in countless different countries and types of society throughout history. Like I said, there will always be people at the bottom who, with the best will in the world, may never be ABLE for a complicated job. And as you pointed out, we’re living in an era where uncomplicated, unskilled jobs are being automated. Where are all of these people going to go? You think they’re just going to disappear? You think they will agree they have any fewer rights than you do to a fair piece of their country’s pie?
It’s your prerogative if you want to live in a ‘dog eat dog’ society but you may as well know that’s a dangerous road. Perception is everything and a sense of fairness is very important. Without it there will be social instability at the very least. The further you push people to the margins the more injustice and resentment they feel, the more violent they are likely to become.
Maybe that’s cause I think the current system is pretty good. I’m siding with the other liberals saying “gee, what you’d expect.”. Personal responsibility, it isn’t just for conservatives anymore.
This doesnt seem to be a guy who is down on his luck and needs a helping hand to reach his own bootstraps. He’s obviously intelligent.
I have yet to see anyone in this thread offer any suggestions on how things can be better organized, or demonstrate how, in the case of capitalism, society is not organized optimally for the success and well-being of all its members, rich and poor. Perhaps if your side could clearly spell this out, we could make some headway here.
I’m in complete agreement here. I think here in America everyone should have a room to live in that has heat and air conditioning, thought it doenst have to be a particularly large room … an 8x10 bedroom with a toilet and shower, or access to communal showers and toilet, should be enough. It does not have to be well furnished, a table, chair and bed should be enough. It COULD be a great room, I’m perfectly OK with that, and kind of like it in fact, but Basic food … rice, beans, chicken, that kind of thing, should be available for free. Basic health care too, and basic cable with Internet and a computer to use as a terminal. And the employer should not have to provide that, why should they?
Now if you want beer money, or cigarette money, or gambling money, or a car or a house, or to come into the country illegally, get a job and work for money. If your boss with whom you have entered an agreement to work is an unreasonable idiot, just quit, go back to your room and try another. If the job market is tight, it’s not like you are gonna die. Perhaps you can start a business on your own … failure just leaves you back in your room, not dead broke and trying to find a place to live. I suspect that the level of innovation and success in America would go through the roof in this case. Sure, some people would do nothing at all if they don’t have to, some will take drugs, some will be too mentally unstable to take care of themselves even under these circumstances, but so what, we’ve got all that now. Let society build a real social safety net and see what happens.
As I’ve said, some businesses would fail, to be sure. The borderline profitable ones. But overall I see no reason a living wage would have a huge impact on companies. If you look at household income from 2000-2009 you can see that if we deducted an average of $36,291 the income of the top 20% of incomes (leaving them with an average of $134,553) we could bring everyone in the bottom 40% up to the top of that bracket ($38,550). And that’s just from redistributing money companies are already laying out in salary with absolutely no new expenses at all.
This is overreaction. You don’t have to expect people to work selflessly for others. People can still work for themselves. Those who work harder or smarter can still achieve great success. Raising the floor will not lower the ceiling.
I’m finding it hard to believe you are ignorant of Social Darwinism. In any case, it’s not funny.
Mainly for Internet access to facilitate job hunting, but frankly, also to keep people off the streets as cheaply as possible. The data is starting to look like raiding in WoW and playing Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto are good ways to keep people from knocking over convenience stores.
I’d replace it with a decent internet connection, because that is actually extremely useful for work, but it also provides some of the things that basic cable does - being able to get some entertainment at the end of a long working day. People do need to wind down.
Books are good, but unless you’re going all Little Women and taking it in turns to read out loud, then they’re not something you share with your family at the same time. Also, it’s cheap. Way cheaper than home fuel bills in most places.
It has a pretty big impact. Because we compete in a global economy. If I pay a living wage here and my competitor pays a “living” wage in China, who is going to have the more competitive price at market? And who is going to have a going concern?
Yeah. It’s one thing for a community to create their own cable system and sell access to it for somewhat in between normal basic cable and free. It should only cost around $30 a month. Likewise for Internet, I see no reason for communities not to offer their own broadband systems for ~ $10 a month (or even free. If it’s cheaper than 10 a month to provide then it would cost more to charge for it than it would be worth.) But to give them away for free would cost -- let me see -- around a billion a year. Now, that’s not tax-giveaway-to-the-rich expensive, but it’s still something I shouldn’t be taxed for.
