Posted on 06/16/2002 6:31:16 AM PDT by SBeck
Government subsidies create a disincentive to be responsible.
To which problem are you referring? The housing shortage or the high cost of housing?
What defies the basic laws of economics is not paying a person enough to live.
I think you meant to say "defines", correct? Your assertion is false. What you consider "enough to live" is based on totally subjective criteria. The cost of living is determined by supply and demand. If the supply is low and the demand high, then the costs will be high. If the demand is low and the supply is high, then the costs will be low. Inflation factors into this equation as well. Everytime government prints more money the purchasing power of the dollar declines because there is more money competing for the same number of products.
Why should the gov't(the taxpayers) pick up the difference between crap wages and what it costs for food, housing, and medical care?
Why don't we let thieves rob convenience stores to make up the difference between their crap wages and what it costs them to live?
Make employers pay a floor wage that is livable...
What you consider livable may not be what others consider livable. Somebody may decide that you really don't need cable TV, or that you only need one car. Who would you prefer make these decisions, you or your neighbors?
Letting wage differentials get out of control. Minwage should have been going up all along and taking the lower wages with it. Gov't didn't attend to business and had to step in with subsidies for the allegedly capitalist employers. parsy.
Setting a minimum wage is not a legitimate government function. Government can no more determine appropriate wages than appropriate selling prices. Only an employer and employee can legitimately determine appropriate compensation for services rendered and only a buyer and seller can determine appropriate prices.
What does a government enforced minimum wage do? 1) It decreases the number of available jobs. 2) It places an artificial value on labor which should instead be determined by supply and demand. 3) It increases the cost of doing business and increases prices.
If you are legitimately concerned about employees earning to little I have a suggestion. When you buy groceries offer to pay 25% more for the groceries than they sell for. Tell the store to distribute the surplus among the lowest paid employees.
The Great Weight of History is against you. It all started in Babylonia. Gov't has always had to regulate business. In "Libertarian World", gov'ts aren't supposed to do this, but that is "theory". The real world works differently. Put down Ayn Rand for a while dude, and read something like "Common Things", or "Nickle and Dimed in America", or "Chasing the Red, White, and Blue." parsy.
That isn't an argument. When something starts is irrelevant. What's relevant is if it works and wether or not it is compatible with rights.
If you can demand that an employer pay his workers a wage over and above what he and his workers have agreeded upon then it logically follows that somebody can demand that you pay a price for groceries over and above what you and the supermarket have agreed upon.
Gov't has always had to regulate business.
Government hasn't had to do anything. Government does what those in power want it to do. If those in power want to plunder then that's what government does. If those in power want to advance an agenda at the expense of taxpayers then that's what government does. If those in power believe in free-entrprise and competition then government stays out of the way.
In "Libertarian World", gov'ts aren't supposed to do this, but that is "theory".
In a Libertarian society government would be confined to two duties: 1) protecting people and their property, 2) maintaining justice.
The real world works differently. Put down Ayn Rand for a while dude, and read something like "Common Things", or "Nickle and Dimed in America", or "Chasing the Red, White, and Blue."
None of that is an argument.
I say it's both.
Where did the money come from to supply your father with the government grant?
I maintain that paying a livable wage is justice. It is what one deserves. Some employers are not nice people and will try to screw their workers by paying based on the NEED of the employee, not the MERIT of the employee. Minwage is simply a floor, which sets a minimum, beyond which the employer may not screw his employee. (And please don't pull that 'But they can always leave' canard. Practically, they can't always leave any more than you could be requested to leave for an uncharted desert isle where you can make your own rules.)
" None of that is an argument."
True. It is advice from an ex-Randite cultist who got deprogrammed and can now see the light. Balance out your reading and you will gain insight as I did. parsy the altruistic enlightener.
Government subsidies create a disincentive to be responsible.
In this case I would have to disagree.
Unlike welfare or foodstamps, this program will not work for irresponsible individuals, and in fact is simply an incentive to encourage people to take on the responsibility of home ownership.
Whether it works or not is another story.
I would be interested in seeing stats a year from now on how many people squander the help they received.
parsy the altruistic enlightener.
Parsy, who has discovered, like so many others, that it's real easy to be altruistic with other people's money...
Incidentally, I've never read a single piece of Rand's work. That was not intentional. It just happened.
Balance out your reading and you will gain insight...
Insight into what? I read several dozen reader reviews of Nickle and Dimed in America on Amazon. I can't say I was impressed. Her book sounds like a "blame free-enterprise for the plight of the poor" propaganda piece. Is my assessment correct? Does the author discuss any factors which contribute to poverty? One reader pointed out that the author draws comparisons between our system and those of countries in Europe which she considers progressive. Does she mean countries like France which has double-digit unemployment? Maybe she means Britian which has something like a 65% rate of taxation and rations health care.
Yes. Cheapskate wages paid by greedy employers. I have to go now and return a phone call, but I will try to pull you up some stuff from another book and post it to you. parsy.
There's already an incentive to take on the responsibility of home ownership. It's called learning marketable skills and making responsible choices in life so one can afford to own a home.
This program is going to create problems you can't even imagine. There will be special interest groups hiring lobbyists to make sure they're on the lists of those qualifying for grants. There will be lawsuits for discrimination and the like. The cost of homes will rise because of the increase in demand.
While the intent of the program may seem noble it is simply a government wealth redistribution scheme to buy votes. The grants are financed by taxes taken from other working Americans who, themsleves, may be trying to buy a home.
That isn't a cause of poverty.
I made responsible choices in my life. I didn't sqaunder my money. I didn't father any children. I didn't waste away my youth getting drunk and partying. I didn't accumulate debt. I taught myself marketable computer skills by reading books and practicing on my computer. Today I command a nice salary and live comfortably. I didn't get there right away. I had to make sacrifices and work to get there. Anyone can do what I did.
No employer is going to offer to pay me minimum wage or anything near it. Why? Because I'll go work for a competitor who offers me more money.
How does minimum wage destroy jobs? Two ways:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.