Wat

1) but only because abolishing the fed will force the gov to pay for the welfare state and hopefully reduce it enough to sufficiently disincentivize illegal immigration.

Yeah, if you don't care about the slave underclass, they make life better for everyone else.

No. Illegals also lower the price of labor in service jobs which is a net harm to our working class @Fondboy

See also China using it's serf class to subsidize it's exports.

no it would be a gain for everyone because cheaper products

this is why you don't want to raise minimum wage

It would be a net gain maybe.

Some interest groups would suffer, like with any policy.

yea

put the taxes towards those areas

I would *abolish* the minimum wage entirely, but I would also deport all illegals and severely regulate legal labor migrants.

I'm with you as far as severe regulations.

I don't know how to justify preventing willing people from working under circumstance some bureaucrat doesn't approve of.

Up to severe regulations I should say.

I just want to reduce the number of people brought into the country.

Not tell people who are already here legally what to do

Oh, "labor migrants"

man, reading is hard, eh?

😉

I'd severely *deregulate* domestic labor

including abolishing the minimum wage as I mentioned

I think we mostly agree then.

Ideally I think open borders would be fine once/if the welfare state is greatly reduced but until that happens (lol) a well controlled border is a necessary evil.

would you rather the burden of people making enough to live be on the economy or the governmnet

I don't understand your question.

I'd rather that people took responsibility for their own well being instead of a centralized detached organization treating them as helpless children and lap dogs.

But that's a false dichotomy obviously.

yea but there will always be people stuck at wallmart and macdonalds

and at the moment those peoples livelyhoods are being covered by the government

so would you rather force the company to raise wages increasing the cost of their products

or would you rather the government just keep helping them out and keep getting cheaper products

Are the products really cheaper if they're being paid for with the government's cut of consumer's salaries?

Do you think there are people so pitiful and helpless that they would starve without state intervention? That's not an accusation. Your question seems to imply it but I want to be sure I understand.

yes, that seems to be the case even with that loaded question

poor people stay poor

also wouldn't matter it would fk over poor people if the cost of their cost of food and essentials increased

I think we're operating with irreconcilable presuppositions then. I think the number of people who are genuine charity cases is extremely small and most people are only hurt by being treated like they can't look after themselves.

the presuppositions that poor people stay poor in america?

The presupposition that poor people are helpless.

>poor people stay poor