So then businesses won't hire poor people and will become unprofitable if they don't.

Sanders is the biggest fucking idiot in the world when it comes to anything involving fiscal responsibility.

Id rather than abolish the welfare state in the first place.

Right now Walmart is able to charge artificially low prices because it's able to pay artificially low wages. It turns a profit doing this only because it's tax subsidized. I would rather companies actually provide goods and services at the price they actually cost, rather than supporting the business most able to capture regulations. A law like this would mean that everyone in the work force would actually be supporting themselves, as opposed to some weird mixture of wealth redistribution and slave labor for corporations who can underpay.

I agree with the sentiment, no way should tax payers be subsidising private business because they pay too little wages. The top tech billionaires are stupidly wealthy and can afford higher wages.

"Stupidly wealthy" is always a fallacious accusation because most wealth for business owners is reinvested in the economy, not hoarded.

That's why rich people get richer.

If they hoarded their money they wouldn't get richer.

Im not saying its not, I am for a free market, but government programs are interfering in the free market of labour

by subsidising underproductive people

You also are not entitled to high wages. You're entitled to wages that reflect your human capital. A boxboy isn't entitled to a high wage.

Cashiers should be making minimum wage.

There should be no minimum wage at all

No cashiers should make whatever it costs to hire a cashier, not the difference between welfare and what it takes to hire a cashier

You get whatever someone is willing to pay, and you are willing to accept.

Win/Win

Rather than a government like New York paying to subsidize poor people to live in the city and work as Baristas in Manhattan, the businesses in the city should be subject to market forces that require them to pay higher wages or lose their baristas.

im with odin, god of economics on this one

Irma is right for once

Now... the issue of the safety net. Because where are legitimate areas of government power to be applied?

You've yet to prove me wrong. So that's 100% accuracy.

😎

@Omniconsumerproducts It's hard to say what a good welfare policy is given the problems with central planning

But if we're going to be giving out "gibs" I'd rather it be uniform so that there's no incentive to being a piece of shit loafer

To naively put forward a suggestion, I'd say some uncomfortably low UBI which increases with years worked and which your employer 100% takes over if they hire you

Defence is legit, citizenship duties.

But if we're going to be giving out "gibs" I'd rather it be uniform so that there's no incentive to being a piece of shit loafer

Or just don't "help" people

UBI could be a good temporary solution from the mess of the current one.

Nope

I want none whatso ever, but if it means eliminating a huge branch of government waste, corruption and inefficiency in one fell swoop....

@Milk
If UBI is on net cheaper than the current welfare scheme AND it eliminates the ability for people to game the system then I support it

I dont see how its a worse solution that letting its rotton corpse lumber on.

I would rather the Federal government wasnt involved in welfare, but if they're going to do it either way, I'd prefer the best system of welfare

Yup

How about a solution where the goberment doesn't steal my money

Yea go on then, after you with how you get there.

Alright dude, let's say you're 4 years old and your parents take you to burger king

You can pick something on the menu, or you can go home hungry - there is no going to McDonalds

Or I can eat the food in my house

Yeah, you can say how we SHOULD have gone to McDonalds and I may agree with you

But since the rest of the country insists on going to Burger King, we have to choose something from this menu