That'd be wonderful for workers to earn more. The problem isn't the wage hike. The problem is the unemployment that would result.
Wages would be much higher today if not for intentional policies that have reduced wages, such as mass immigration, inflation, and bad trade deals.
Libertarians are extremely dangerous, because they tend to make voters want socialism. The goal isn't economic inequality. The goal is to create a strong, pleasant society that doesn't suffer from the evils of socialism.
The great fear is the libertarian vs. socialist divide which continues to transform society after society into socialist states. Third Way/Third Position/Distributist thinkers are better.
As Ron Unz has argued in the past, it would be a better society that paid workers enough to be independent rather than forcing them to be dependent on government services.
Ron Unz is right. Higher wages are better than government dependence. And this society doesn't have the heart to force citizens to live in poverty, though we encourage poverty in other government actions (see previous post).
As Ron Unz has argued in the past, it would be a better society that paid workers enough to be independent rather than forcing them to be dependent on government services.
Ron Unz is right. Higher wages are better than government dependence. And this society doesn't have the heart to force citizens to live in poverty, though we encourage poverty in other government actions (see previous post).
Our compassion should only extend to 'Relief' which had a specified period of time before it was withdrawn.
Anyway, the minimum wage previously was a good idea when mass immigration was so popular. But now with Trump there's no need. Trump will drive up the market wage if he continues what he's doing.
Ron Unz though wrote a very compelling case for the minimum wage which made sense at the time. I just say, the environment has changed, so now a higher minimum wage is not something that's really wanted.
Since this society today desires to redistribute wealth with the government and government is wasteful, Unz's argument was essentially that it's better to just pay the workers more directly. Less is wasted that way, and the government's power is reduced.
When you look at the way he approached the topic, it's very smart.
And separately, as the minimum wage relates to immigration, it's also very interesting.
To argue as you are against the minimum wage, you'd need a society that cracks down on immigration. We have that under Trump, but such did not seem possible before Trump. I always try to deal with what's possible, so I adjust my positions as the environment changes.
That'd be wonderful for workers to earn more. The problem isn't the wage hike. The problem is the unemployment that would result.
ReplyDeleteWages would be much higher today if not for intentional policies that have reduced wages, such as mass immigration, inflation, and bad trade deals.
Libertarians are extremely dangerous, because they tend to make voters want socialism. The goal isn't economic inequality. The goal is to create a strong, pleasant society that doesn't suffer from the evils of socialism.
The great fear is the libertarian vs. socialist divide which continues to transform society after society into socialist states. Third Way/Third Position/Distributist thinkers are better.
The problem is the unemployment that would result.
DeleteAbsolutely through automaton for instance.
As Ron Unz has argued in the past, it would be a better society that paid workers enough to be independent rather than forcing them to be dependent on government services.
ReplyDeleteRon Unz is right. Higher wages are better than government dependence. And this society doesn't have the heart to force citizens to live in poverty, though we encourage poverty in other government actions (see previous post).
As Ron Unz has argued in the past, it would be a better society that paid workers enough to be independent rather than forcing them to be dependent on government services.
DeleteRon Unz is right. Higher wages are better than government dependence. And this society doesn't have the heart to force citizens to live in poverty, though we encourage poverty in other government actions (see previous post).
Our compassion should only extend to 'Relief' which had a specified period of time before it was withdrawn.
I appreciate the reply. I welcome automation. And it wouldn't be only Americans who'd lose their jobs but illegals:
Deletehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-22/new-study-finds-trumps-immigration-crack-down-could-cost-5-trillion-gdp-over-10-year
Anyway, the minimum wage previously was a good idea when mass immigration was so popular. But now with Trump there's no need. Trump will drive up the market wage if he continues what he's doing.
Ron Unz though wrote a very compelling case for the minimum wage which made sense at the time. I just say, the environment has changed, so now a higher minimum wage is not something that's really wanted.
Since this society today desires to redistribute wealth with the government and government is wasteful, Unz's argument was essentially that it's better to just pay the workers more directly. Less is wasted that way, and the government's power is reduced.
When you look at the way he approached the topic, it's very smart.
And separately, as the minimum wage relates to immigration, it's also very interesting.
To argue as you are against the minimum wage, you'd need a society that cracks down on immigration. We have that under Trump, but such did not seem possible before Trump. I always try to deal with what's possible, so I adjust my positions as the environment changes.
Thanks for the link and if they limited welfare to only those disabled, there should be enough workers.
Delete