Ah, yup that is exactly what should happen.
Perhaps. But it’s beyond the ability of the government to force.
That is what has caused the massive economic inequality in this country.
Partially. The outsourcing of jobs overseas and technological automation are much larger contributors.
Why shouldn’t a person who works hard have a more money to support their families, and to keep them off of using the social support safety net programs that those on the right are so eager to get rid of?
- I’d love to figure out a solution wherein the employers of low-wage individual were incented to pay them more in such a way that the workers didn’t lose benefits in the process. No idea how to pull that one off.
- The “right” isn’t “eager” to get rid of safety net programs. There is a legitimate economic view that social support programs cause moral hazard when they become too generous. Sweden went through this realization a few years ago, and pulled back on some of its programs to compensate. My nephew was one of the casualties of that action; poor baby had to go back to work. :-)
If you want to get rid of them, why don’t you support making it possible for a someone working full time to be able to support themselves and their families?
I don’t want to get rid of them. In a civil society, nobody starves, and we should be happy that we’ve largely achieved that in the United States; the two biggest killers of low-income individuals in the US are both obesity-related diseases.
THAT SAID, it is a legitimate debate in a civil society regarding how generous those programs should be, else you end up funding a lifestyle which is comfortable enough so people who don’t feel like working simply don’t. And taken to its logical extreme, that is death to a economy.
Corporate profits largely go to people who need money way less than the workers need them.
True, but most people in America don’t work for large corporations. You’re making a case for more entrepeneurism, and I think we all could benefit by more aggressive government programs investing in startup ventures.
Would it be so bad if people who already earn many, many, many times more in a year than the average Walmart worker does got a little less?
I’d prefer to do both. This isn’t a zero-sum-game, you know.
Sorry but your selfishness is glaring so bright that my eyes are watering…
That’s economic and political reality that’s blinding you, not “selfishness.”