Johnnie wrote:
The high cost of low prices comes into play, I would sooner pay more up front than the social welfare costs related to having a giant under class stripped of their dignity by being on government aid and the cost of the government aid and it's overhead.
The purpose of production is consumption, if we ignore that then we are worse off. Especially given that the costs of the government aid are less than the price differences.
Quote:
what is the government forced redistribution of wealth ? In a some what free market people should be basing their consumer choices on whether it's worth it to them to buy something or hire something based on the true cost, not that somebody else is paying the true cost of labor.
I'm against providing cheap servants for the wealthy and shifting the labor cost to the middle class.
The wealthy pays most of the tax money anyway. Perhaps they don't pay as much as they should as a percent of their income, but as a percent of the government income they basically pay a supermajority of it.
Quote:
Your theory means somebody would pay twice by shopping at a place that pays a living wage because first they would pay enough for whatever they bought so the merchant could pay his/her help and than they would pay again in the form of taxes to support the low income worker at a merchants compentition. People aren't stupid enough to want to pay twice, so the place that pays a living wage goes out of business and we end up with a collective where everyone works for the government out of the hiring hall called the unemployment office or welfare office who send people out on job assignments if they come in and say they have no work.
Umm.... the purpose of employers is not to pay a living wage but rather to organize production to fit our needs. Frankly, I am separating the purposes of purchasing and welfare and you aren't, so your models and my models really don't fit together well. Not only that, but a large number of people who work at minimum wages and such aren't the poor anyway, which I have already argued and stated that this is supported by figures at the CBO. This means that the living wage is pretty much already a bad welfare strategy and that paying twice is more efficient.
Quote:
What we will end up with is being assigned jobs by a government run hiring hall and it will probably come down to payoffs as employers bribe the government workers or use political contacts to skim off the better workers who show up looking for work. I've noticed no advertising by the service industry for labor, why is that ? could it be because they have resorted to having the government send them workers out of the government hiring hall.
I haven't said anything about creating a government hiring hall. Not only that, but I don't see the problem in employers seeking to hire the best workers. Frankly, how much advertising do most companies use for jobs anyway? I have seen help wanted signs of services places along with many others. Not only that, but you still haven't really proven that living wages are better, most economists say that they are worse and a stupid idea.
Quote:
The government agents at the hiring hall will tip off people they know who is looking for help when it's a good job. so all it will end up being is the connected get the better jobs like it's always been.
If i ran a small business or was in human resources, I would want a good connection down the unemployment office. Why bother putting an ad in the paper when my friend who knows if one of their friends needs a job I'll hook them up with one of the better jobs I'm in control of hiring for, so they will cherry pick the unemployed that show up and refer the better people to me.
Right, like it always has been. If you are buddies with a friend or a manager of some place, then you got an easy entrance too. Frankly, if you have friends in the right places, then it doesn't MATTER what set up we have, you are going to have an advantage over others. That is just how things work. The advantage here is not really that phenomenal "ooh, I have a guy who can help me get good low-skilled jobs", I mean, that is nice, and it is unfair, but it has very little potential to do major damage.