Replies

I hope you won't mind if I add a couple of comments to my earlier remarks. (The wife was hungry and wanted to go eat so I was somewhat rushed.)

"People are going to get the basics of life from one of two places - Their job, or their gov't. I think it better to get it from their job."

Well, sure, it would be better to get these basics from the job. But, the problem with your solution is this. You've not really placed the responsibility on the employer since you're relying upon the government to force the employer to meet these basic needs. This is, perhaps, worse than relying upon the government. Surely, you recognize that this is the argument of those who believe in the "Third Way". This is a varient of socialism, national socialism or fascism, where the government mandates that employers provide the services that would be provided by the state under other forms of socialism. IOW, employers are subordinated to, and controlled by, the state in order to provide for the "greater good of all".

"There is a component to wages that MUST cover the basics. .... The job of gov't is to set a lower limit, and there are sensible ways to project an overall fair amount of hourly wage. ... I am still amazed that the simple notion that an employer ought to pay his employee a fair enough wage to live meets so much resistance here."

In essence, you have said that there is a "right" to certain basics and it is the obligation of the government to ensure that employers satisfy these rights. The reason these ideas meet such resistance here is simple. Most conservatives belive that these are not "rights" and that it is the responsibility of the individual to satisfy these "basics".

One of the reasons conservatives object to this definition of rights is simple. When you arbitrarily limit the living wage to a family of three you are violating the rights of a family of four. You have said that the first child of a family has a right to live above the poverty level but the second child of that same family does not have this right. Rights, by definition, belong to all. If there is a right to live above the poverty level then that right, in order to be a right, must be extended to all. You cannot call it a right for the first child and deny that the second child does not also have this right. Consequently, this cannot be a "right". But this does bring us back to my earlier point that you have made the cost of the employee a function of the number in that employees family and have said that the value (or wages paid) of that employee to the employer is also a function of the number of the members of that employees family. I think you would admit that this becomes unworkable in a free society.

High CEO pay may simply be an incentive for people to work hard in an attempt to become CEO. In other words, that a CEO is paid highly is unrelated to how hard he or she works or how "productive" he or she is as CEO. The high pay is a reward for that person having worked hard in the past to attain that position.

See this article for an interesting analysis of this emotionally-charged issue.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/research/faculty/news_releases/edward.lazear/lazear.htm

"You've not really placed the responsibility on the employer since you're relying upon the government to force the employer to meet these basic needs. This is, perhaps, worse than relying upon the government."

No. You've placed the "financial" responsibility back on the employer. The gov't has the responsibility to enforce the rules, not to pay the worker. This is the same as "using" the gov't via means of the courtroom, to collect a bill someone owes you. It's the defendant who will pay you. parsy.

"Most conservatives belive that these are not "rights" and that it is the responsibility of the individual to satisfy these "basics". "

True. And the way the individual satisfies his "responsibility" for these basics is by "working." And now lets have the other half. Let's ensure that employers meet their "responsibilities" by paying AT LEAST a fair and livable wage. parsy.