Originally Posted by CBrown85
I've mentioned that I'm not against the system at least twice.
The two are related. The free market fundies who are all about letting the forces work also seem to be the ones who are against unionization and high taxes. Well, if we're going to implement this system, it places a pretty high tax burden on business. This is a concept I don't see flying well, even with the decreased wages that will be paid (especially in businesses like piobs where there's really only one min. wager but will still see a marked increase in taxes). I honestly don't see the connect.
I don't like the amoral nature of the open market and I don't like the idea that laborers could and probably would be exploited. I've got major issues with bloated unions and the protection of dogfuck employees, too. But we're not having that conversation right now and I don't feel the need to preface every post I make here because I'm worried matt and piob would misunderstand or immediately jump to a conclusion.
And lol worthy- I'm not sure why you demonstrate such an emotional response to my political views but I'm a liberal, big deal, get over it- I don't put tin foil in the microwave or wear a helmet.
If we find a safety net that is more efficient, humane and dignified, I'm all for it.
And we should substitute this with what? Oh, let me guess....
I also do not see why you totally ignore my logic as to why wages will likely not fall below minimum (in the vast majority of cases) and keep insisting they will, with no other logic than this is what will happen if MW is removed. Given how you seem to feel you have a whole set of a priori
premises, no doubt substituting your morality in place of the market's amorality will be a far, far superior and efficient solution.
I think Matt said it best. Jesus Christ.