Why is it the employer's responsibility to provide a living wage?

[Heywood]

Tell you what: how about we just raise taxes on the employers, and hand that money back to the employees. That way, you're happy, and the employees can continue to work, and the rest of us don't have to pay more taxes so that employers can have subsidized cheap labor.

I have been thinking about doing a thread on a negative income tax or guaranteed minimum income for some time now. The more I have thought about it...the more I like which is a big ideological turnaround for me.

---

To clarify, do you feel anyone is responsible for providing a means of living?

In hunting gathering times, you either made your nut or you died. The state was invented to help individuals make their nut, not legislate someone else help individuals make their nut.

---

Woodie - fine theist that he is - would like to see workers starve to death for the enrichment of their employers.

I never said this....this is you peddling hate again.

---

I'm going to go with .. because the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize the workers of cheapskate business owners who expect us to make their business plan work.

Isn't this another way of saying your too cheap to help your fellow man so you want to mandate that employers pay a wage high enough so you don't have too?

People have moral/social obligations to other people. You want to shift that obligation away from people and onto corporations.

[Ryantology]

Isn't this another way of saying your too cheap to help your fellow man so you want to mandate that employers pay a wage high enough so you don't have too?

People have moral/social obligations to other people. You want to shift that obligation away from people and onto corporations.

So, it's okay for employers to be too cheap to pay for the labor they get, and they have the right to pass on the moral and social obligations everybody else apparently has.

[Heywood]

Isn't this another way of saying your too cheap to help your fellow man so you want to mandate that employers pay a wage high enough so you don't have too?

People have moral/social obligations to other people. You want to shift that obligation away from people and onto corporations.

So, it's okay for employers to be too cheap to pay for the labor they get, and they have the right to pass on the moral and social obligations everybody else apparently has.

What is your car worth? Well it is worth what people will pay for it. Why does every other exchange follow that rule except labor? Why the inconsistency?

My view is consistent, cause I think every exchange should follow that rule....including labor.

[Ryantology]

So, it's okay for employers to be too cheap to pay for the labor they get, and they have the right to pass on the moral and social obligations everybody else apparently has.

What is your car worth? Well it is worth what people will pay for it. Why does every other exchange follow that rule except labor? Why the inconsistency?

My view is consistent, cause I think every exchange should follow that rule....including labor.

And if you can't afford to sustain your life, you don't deserve to be alive?

[BlackSwordsman]

I've been living in America for many years now, I have learned one lesson

You. Are. Fucked.

Hence I am taking my family back to Europe.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So, it's okay for employers to be too cheap to pay for the labor they get, and they have the right to pass on the moral and social obligations everybody else apparently has.

What is your car worth? Well it is worth what people will pay for it. Why does every other exchange follow that rule except labor? Why the inconsistency?

My view is consistent, cause I think every exchange should follow that rule....including labor.

[KUSA]

Why should anybody be forced to provide anything for anyone? This includes businesses, governments, and private individuals.

[Heywood]

What is your car worth? Well it is worth what people will pay for it. Why does every other exchange follow that rule except labor? Why the inconsistency?

My view is consistent, cause I think every exchange should follow that rule....including labor.

I noticed Rampant, that you've de-evolved back to employing internet memes instead of good arguments(not that your arguments were ever any good....but you were trying at least).

I've never read Ayn Rand.

---

Why should anybody be forced to provide anything for anyone? This includes businesses, governments, and private individuals.

Don't you remember signing the social contract the left concocted to turn their world view into your obligations?

[downbeatplumb]

A couple of thoughts on this:

1:If you are not paid enough to live on it is not a wage, its pocket money.

2:If I was offered a job that would not pay me what I need to live on then I would not take the job.

[Cato]

Our system is broken. The expectation that people should work full time and not be able to afford basic shelter, clothing, food and healthcare is morally repugnant. This is a societal problem that our current mixed market doesn't address. I'll state right now that a short term solution I support is to enact legislation to grant a basic income to all citizens. This income is earned by our collective productivity and should be shared to provide basic life sustaining necessities for all citizens. Let me be clear about something; some will call this wealth redistribution which can only be done by ignoring the fact that our economic system is expressly set up to concentrate wealth where it should be set up to adequately share resources. As I respond to some of the themes in this thread keep in mind that my egalitarian nature stops once basic needs are fulfilled. Some people will have more than others. Sometimes this is earned, often times it is not (think Justin Bieber).

I was going to continue here, but think I'll go back and quote previous comments.