Either you're slipping, or I've always posted real posts. Or both. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why is it idiotic to raise your still-living-at-home adult children's allowances? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't you think the minimum motivation to find better paying jobs just might be too low, too? If government tells me how much I have to pay someone beyond their market value, I just close the business and help that someone make far less than minimum wage. QED
Mr.G: But you won't contribute to charities unless you are forced to do so, will you? After all, what's yours is yours. Fair pay for fair work. Work it out for yourself. Werd. You're not self-sufficient. You rely on other people for most things.
Working 40+ hour weeks and still not being able to afford housing? How much motivation would that create? Does that "market value" take into account a minimum desirable standard of living?
Um, charity isn't charity if it's forced. And, yes: What's mine is mine. Just because I am blessed with the right to own property that I've earned honestly doesn't automatically infect me with a Scrooge McDuck can't-share-the-wealth virus. The inuendo speaks more to your own biases and prejudices toward the producers of actual wealth. Since one can imagine that eating one's own is a no-no, ... At fair market value. Yes. I guess you cannot create a market that has me as a paying customer this time around, again. You're honest. I've never thought you weren't. I rely on other people willing to trade something of value for equal value in a different desireable form. People with nothing to offer have to be satisfied with their own playground adornments.
The motivation to move to more affordable estates. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No. The market doesn't exchange desires. Standard Desires are a personal thing.
As I understand it: equivalence = essentially equal (related to comparative value). equal = same in some quality or status.
What if the person has already reached the limit of his capabilities? In that case a socially defined minimum SOL; i.e. food, shelter, basic necessities, education, healthcare, insurance.
Which of us hasn't? Why does the fact of my own existence obligate you to involuntarily support me in a way that I cannot? Since I'm a member of Society and I'm not happy with all that I have and I desire more/better -- fork over, or I'll call you bad names. That seems to be the Jame's Standard Model Approach around these parts.
Yes, but not all of us earning minimum wage You are a human being, you are a part of the society I belong to. It would help if inflation and the minimum wage were linked then, to make sure that you can make at least enough to share in the basic human necessities.
A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane, From War Is Kind, 1900
But is that all there is? Existence? The welfare of each is bound up in the welfare of all.” -Helen Keller
Mr. G: The fact is, you're just lucky. By accident of birth, you have had opportunities to earn a decent living - opportunities that are denied to others by similar accidents of birth. But you won't share your luck and wealth. You won't level the playing field and provide equal opportunity. You want to keep it all for yourself. That's just selfish. I'm right, aren't I? How many charities do you support? Well, something obviously does.
No one has a right to demand from another any charity whatsoever. Charity, if given, is a choice of an individual. Similarly, government control of wages only reflects our distrust of people being able to take care of themselves, and if they cannot take care of themselves, I ask for all to answer: Why should we take care of them and care at all?
