The Conservative Voice

[Violet]

What do you think is better? More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?

Why not have everyone earn something and then less people employed earning more than that base amount?

You can't get from paid wages to slavery full stop, they're mutually exclusive.

All that slavery posits is that a person is owned by another person... there's plenty of room for a slave of a generous owner to make money.

Rich people are automatically pro-slavery? Bullshit min. Bill gates and warren buffet seems so fucking likely to take slaves.

Automatically and all of them? No... but please note the bolded word in here "The rich cocksuckers would probably sign on to that in a heartbeat."

Please, try not to argue with your own ghosts

Like I said, I'm for a minimum wage, but there is the fact that increasing wages across the board costs jobs. There is always an opportunity cost involved every time you switch the balance in a system, the key is finding an effective and sustainable balance in a system that is prone to taking adjustments poorly.

Increasing wages for the lower end of the spectrum would only reduce the gap between the rich and poor... is it too much to ask that the well off have the responsibility of providing enough to the unfortunates that such can eat, drink, and be warm? It isn't as if the rich are losing anything to feed the dogs table scraps.

And before you start saying these corporations could afford it from their profits, what about the millions of small businesses that will have no such luck adjusting? They are the ones who will have to find equilibrium through some other cost cuts. Unless you want different wage laws depending on how much the business earns in profit? Good luck finding an effective implementation for such a thing.

Why would one take from "small businesses" at all? That sounds rather unfair when one considers how much they make. What remains is the fact that there are people making millions and billions of monetary units a year that are growing rich beyond any real use of their money while poorer people are still starving, freezing, and being denied medical attention when they need it.

Ideological form of a possible system: It's not at all difficult to find an effective implementation of such a system... the question is only which of the many viable options one will decide to go with I think a percent income tax increasing as people become richer (and nonexistent at the low end) would be one of the most effective implementations: as it would avoid sucking from people that are barely getting by and make full use of mountains of money that are just sitting around (iow: being useless). Such a system is also adaptable... if one finds that the poor are overcompensated and the rich being drained faster than they can make: one simply lowers the percentage transfered at different levels of income Conversely... should it be judged that the poor require more: the percentage at levels deemed appropriate simply increases.

There may well be a better implementation still... but it remains that there exist different (yet effective for the wound being treated) executions of welfare for the poor.

The underline problem can't be solved. Finite resources and an expanding population is the underline problem.

So control the birth rate down to levels sustainable by the finite resources, increasing the finite resources available while doing so. If that was the underlying problem, then the underlying problem is solved