"if the employer is forced to pay more money to each worker by the government, he will have to compensate for the extra expense by (1) reducing the numbers of workers under his care, thus reducing employment and harming a large amount of workers (2) cutcorners and costs of his product, which is seldom good for quality and often makes things much more poorly-made than ever before (3) raising the prices of the goods he produces, which inevitably forces consumers (including the workers who are now earning higher wages) to pay ore for everyday items (and since minimum wages are seldom imposed on a certain industry, this raises costs in virtually all areas of the economy) (4) going out of business altogether because of artificial and unrealistic legal obligations, which means the destruction of the jobs of ALL of his workers and a subsequent spike in unemployment."
is entirely the fault of our current economic system and the means with which we organize our economy as a whole. These are not the fault of attempting to guarantee a livable pay for all workers, these are the faults of having an economic system in which businesses, resources, goods, profits, etc. are owned by private individuals competing for the interest of profit. This is a fundamentally terrible, anti-democratic, and anti-societal system that continues to be detrimental to society, including for all the issues you just brought up on just this one topic. No one is ignoring these "negative affects", we're just pointing out that they aren't caused by what you think it is...
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
So your "solution" is expecting people to work without the benefit of pay or a chance to rise in station in the world (it being a classless society) – that people who do not work will make just as much as those who do work? You must have great faith in the purity of human nature if you expect everyone to altruistic work for the common good with nothing in it for them, hold hands, and sing koom-bye-ya. Classless societies have been attempted before in history (yes I mean TRUE classlessness, not just a socialist dictator and a political ruling class dictating the lives of peasan… Read more
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Firstly, I find it interesting how you assume "classlessness" must mean an equality of outcome, and also your assumption that "a chance to rise in station" must mean holding power over others. I disagree with both. Classlessness does not inherently mean that everyone and everything must be completely equal, it merely means that all people have equal access to the same means of opportunity and decision-making (aka equality of opportunity). Two people who have different levels of "wealth" but equal levels of access to resources and decision-making power are not in different "classes", because "class" in a socio-economic context is about ownership over the means of production, not of how much money or "stuff" that you have/get. So no, I don't expect everyone in a classless society to inherently make the same amount of money regardless of work or skill, but I do expect every worker to share equal ownership over the profits they produce and equal decision-making power within their own workplaces and communities, because that'sRead more