Black Lives Matter plan to 'completely dismantle' society

Post Reply New Topic

Theoretically possible, but then the state may have to subsidise the employers for the burden that was shifted onto them, or risk the employers (particularly small\family businesses which would include franchises who "look" like they are owned by larger corporations) going out of business due to the increased burden on them, and so increasing unemployment (and by extension, government subsidies to the unemployed)...Even with the 50%+ increase in the example in my earlier post, the "social benefits" received only decreased by around 25% [1].

A large part of the "low wages" comes from supply/demand: There are a finite number of jobs in any given area:
- Where the number of potential people to fill those positions is lower than the number of positions, wages need to increase (on their own, without government involvement) in order to have the position filled, as potential workers have more opportunities to pick from/move to
- Where the number of potential workers is close to the number of jobs, there is a small amount of pressure to increase wages, in order to ensure a position is filled, but not to the extent that exists where there are fewer potential workers.
- Where the number of potential workers exceeds the number of jobs available, there is no pressure to increase wages, as should someone feel the job doesn't pay enough, there are plenty more people who would potentially be happy to take what is on offer (and so government acion is required to force increases).

If the idea is to have employers increase wages on their own, then government policies which result in increases to the pool of potential workers in those low paying jobs need to be at a minimum slowed, if not stopped\reversed, as well as training being available to permit "entry level" workers to progress to higher paying roles (while not excessively increasing the pool of prospective workers at that new level as that could result in wages at that level dropping\stagnating) to allow new entrants into the entry-level pool to get a foothold.

Unfortunately, simplistic ideas like "increasing minimum wages will end poverty" fail to take into account the reality of the overall situation.

[1] Given the "subsidised child care" received on minimum wage exceeds the actual income received, it would be interesting to see if there was a "revenue neutral"\"saving" that may be possible were those earning over a certain amount to have it completely removed (it only decreased around 10% when the wages in the example more than doubled which suggests it likely applies to those earning significantly more), with the "savings" from this cut-off being invested into allowing a parent (mother or father) to be able to stay at home and care for the children, whilst being at the same level financially as if they were working full time in a minimum wage job - Those on minimum wage can choose to look after their children (receiving same social benefits as well as a "minimum wage" equivalent income from the government), or keep working a minimum wage job (keeping the present "social benefits", with no\small increase) whilst those on higher incomes can lose the "subsidised child care" (or at high enough income, have a minor tax increase if the savings from removal of their "subsidised child care" didn't reach the amount required to "employ" parents at minimum wage to stay home to look after their children.).

This also has the added benefit that it may actually be helping provide what those on minimum wage (lower and working class) really want:

Taken from a yougov conducted survey whose results are at: https://americancompass.org/essays/home-building-survey-part-1/

If subsidizing the wages of low-earners can't be avoided that's a case for UBI, not for subsidizing Wal-Mart.

Where would the money for this UBI come from, though?

Taxes on businesses (potentially forcing smaller ones to close, or larger ones to decide to relocate to areas outside those being taxed), or taxes on workers (resulting in the potential for many to decide they are better off not working as the little extra they receive after tax from their job is insufficient for the effort they make in employment)?

As the recent pandemic has shown - many retailers could quite easily close all their stores and provide their products through the mail from other regions, whilst "office work" can be performed in a "work from home" manner, removing the need for centralised offices, and making relocating buinesses considerably simpler...

Did you read what I wrote about Dick's in Seattle? They're not a chain but a family owned business. They can pay their workers a good wage, regardless.
Besides, the more workers make, the more they spend, making the economy grow. Business people today are, by and large, interested only in the short term gains, and not in the long game in which everyone can benefit.

It is somewhat easier to do that in a location with a median income above $100,000. I very much doubt they'd be able to do the same if they were located somewhere like Detroit (median income $34,000), given customers wouldn't have the financial ability to pay the higher prices required to boost the staff's wages (overheads like rent may be lower which could help compensate, or may instead be used to provide lower prices to customers to ensure business remains viable).
Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattles-median-income-soars-past-100000-but-wealth-doesnt-reach-all/

Taking a cherry-picked example from an affluent location isn't representative of the rest of the country (or what is possible there), a large portion of which is significantly less fortunate financially... How about looking for an example of a location where the median wage is $50,000 (closer to overall national median income and more representitive of the poorer areas where most minimum wage earners would be located) and who were able to provide equivalent wages to those in your example?

Where does the money to waste on wars come from? Where does the money to waste on corporate welfare come from? If money to waste on such things exist than there's no reason social programs can't be improved and/or consolidated.

For starters, if you're already subsidizing those earners consolidating it under a UBI program instead of under multiple benefits like food stamps doesn't represent a change in spending, so what do you mean where will it come from? You're just streamlining something that's already being done for earners under a certain threshold. I'd rather give money that subsidizes companies that refuse to pay a living wage directly to their workers than have that company receive it.

You just need to ensure whoever is President decides not to take the country into any new wars (There don't seem to have been many of those over the past few decades...)



The problem with relying on "consolidating" existing funds in order to fund a universal program (such as UBI) is that in order to be "universal", funds that would otherwise be destined for the needy have to be taken from them to give to those who previously were not receiving any support, so (absent additional funding) you end up with either less money per person (everyone receives funds), or simply rebranding the existing system (not achieving the aims of UBI).

You also need to consider (as I had mentioned) the source of the money currently used for the programs - If it requires additional money from businesses, there is little (particularly as shown during the pandemic) to prevent them moving the company to a lower taxing location, whilst retaining the current employees (or replace them with citizens of the new location) should they decide it is in their interest to do so.

Extending good pay to workers is the way a community's affluence grows, as they use their increased income to fire up the local economy. Think of it as an investment. Otherwise, poverty and low wages will continue, and said community will eventually die.

Not to mention social issues associated with poverty, like crime, alcoholism/drug abuse, domestic violence, irresponsible parenting and such.

Absolutely.

BLM keeping the peace against a vile troublemaker.



If you listen to women in the video the individual being protested against has been allowed to vilify black neighbors for years with police doing anything.

BLM clearly a voice for those who are marginalised.

BLM wants to dismantle society ... Trumpsters want a civil war ... people in Hell want ice-water ...

And I want peace on earth.
Most likely won’t happen.

not as long as we have corporate welfare for the MICC.

Its relevant.

none so blind as those who will not see. no matter.