Message from @Omniconsumerproducts
Discord ID: 486979816180940801
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
You sound like you just read your first book on Austrian economics and want to leap into the promised land instantly. @Milk
No, when I work I earn money
When the goverment takes it I don't earn as much as I should
What do you mean when you work? You mean when you engage in actions which are only rational given the presence of a large defensive apparatus that maintains the system of property rights?
We have a potential plan, to reduce government spending on welfare by lets say... 50% to be conservative. Now, we all want a much higher reduction in the state spending so less of our own money is needed in taxes and we all get richer. BUT you are saying 100% or nothing and wont play the smart game, crying "Wahhh muh morals."
I don't know what you're talking about
I think you're assuming
Im definitely assuming alot for hyperbolic reasons yes. 😃