the pay debate in one place to save time in the future.

[ford_prefect42]

Because liberals have a hive mind, and I am sick of having the same discussion, with the same points raised over and over, in the same order, using the same words, and would rather cut and paste the rebuttals from here, rather than typing them again and again.

Comments

[chess]

This is all exactly why I much prefer the Universal Basic Income over faffing around with the minimum wage

[ford_prefect42]

Yeah, I can see a lot of arguments for a basic living stipend. The problem, from my perspective is that "pepple will spend it wrong". We'll still have people eating cat food because they spent their basic living stipend on the psychic hotline. We'll still have people living under bridges because they drank their stipend.

My actual preference is something akin to a dormitory that offers 3 hot meals and a room. Takes all comers and is heavily policed, that offers educational and work opportunities, and transportation assistance. Basically, I prefer a defined and provided minimum lifestyle to going down the rabit hole of "X people are having to do Y thing, and that's terrible. "

[chess]

That's the second line of defense in my idle plans for what I would do if I ruled the world - basically if you show up to the local council office going 'I spent my stipend and am hungry' you get transferred to the defined-lifestyle program where your stipend gets spent for you.

[coercedbynutmeg]

Still a fan of reverting the current food stamp/WIC programs to a place where you go to a food distribution center and pick up set rations on a pre-determined schedule.

[ford_prefect42]

Fixed (lazily)

[ford_prefect42]

Fixed (lazily)

[prester_scott]

My only real beef here is the contention that moral arguments are "emotive", by which I take it you mean "irrational".

Not all moral statements are good arguments. Some may be question-begging, i.e. stating as a premise that which ought to be a conclusion. Some may be bald declarations of personal taste or loyalty, but then there can be no argument, only agreement or disagreement.

But I hope you would agree that, at least in theory, one could make a proper logical argument that it is immoral to compel the makers of goods and services to provide universal social benefits through the mechanism of employment, wages and benefits.

[ford_prefect42]

Perhaps i phrased this poorly in the OP. This particular issue is complicated. There are a bunch of different philosophies on where "morals" come from. Some say they are divine, which refers to holy texts, others refer to "natural law", which examines nature, some are "consequentialist", and others think that morals are derived from societal norms

[jordan179]

For example, let's take the job of "whipping boy", or a job for an employee whose exact job is being mistreated. Where does rational morality fall on that? And why?

IMO, unless he's being coerced into the position, it's okay. Mind you, this is not a job which it is probably all that rational to offer (what benefit does the enterprise derive from scapegoating?), and I suspect the salary would have to be immense to get very many takers.

[jordan179]

The market is also hidden because when one considers the salary or wage offered for a single job, one is not necessarily considering that this is not the only job attainable by the applicant. If one job offers $8/hr and the other $10/hr for equivalent work, all other things being equal, the better applicants will gravitate toward the higher-paying job. This means that the stingier employer will wind up with lower-quality workers, the more generous one higher-quality workers. The applicant is not forced to take any particular job!

[eta_ta]

Up until "immoral" part your argument is consistent

[ford_prefect42]

That is better, thank you!