You told me to “stop it” when I said not one blessed thing about tipping. I honestly had no idea that’s what you were talking about.
Maybe you have me confused with someone else.
I think most people would agree philosophically that a government subsidy is appropriate for those whose needs exceed their ability to earn. The complications lie in:
- Establishing whose “fault” it is that the employee’s labor isn’t worth more (e.g., voters thinking “She just needs to ________.”)
- Verifying that her labor isn’t actually worth a lot more than current wages + benefits + payroll tax (i.e., her employer is taking advantage of her.)
- The fact that “needs” and “wants” are a sliding scale (Do people deserve a contemporary lifestyle or an outdated lifestyle that society deems no longer acceptable?)
- The fact that needs are highly dependent on individual circumstances (location, family composition, health conditions, etc.)
I realize there may be some overlap among these items.
Alright. Then there’s not much else for me to say.
I agree. I would say that debit cards and direct deposit fueled the rise in checking accounts from the 90’s into the 2000’s and not ATM’s. JMO though.
2 Likes
On this note…more feelings about tipping. Less about minimum wage.
2 Likes
You left out something important. We need to stop incentivizing additional children for people who’s labor is not worth a living wage.
We provide a wage supplement – the difference between the market rate and the cost of human needs.
Fortunately, the US already does this. I’m not a fan of the label, “Earned Income Tax Credit”, but it is economically a wage supplement.
1 Like
The problem is that people have children anyway.
And, I’m not joking. This is a real problem and I have no ideas for solutions. We won’t force people to be celibate, or to use contraceptives, or to get abortions, or to give up babies for adoption.
And, we can’t prevent people from having economic reversals after kids are born.
We don’t want to “punish children for the mistakes of their parents”. So, we provide the necessities for parents with children.
What happens if we remove this “incentive” for children?
(Back in AFDC days, when there was a lot of publicity about teens with babies, I thought a dormitory would be a good idea. Now we don’t have AFDC and low income mothers aren’t usually teens.)
Easy solution:
Pay people to tie their tubes. $10000 grant. Spend it however you want, gamble it away, spend it on drugs, throw it at people, whatever you do, don’t have any more kids.
1 Like
I’m not so sure. I think that people who think the minimum wage should equal the “living wage” for an adult with two children have already determined that everybody has the “ability to earn” that wage. They are earning it, the problem is selfish employers who refuse to pay a wage in line with the value added by the worker.
RDO says “additional” and you say “more”. Would you make the offer contingent on having at least ___ children already?
Nah. But it’s one time payout. Get your tubes tied = $10000.
So, items #1 and #2 on my list. I see.
1 Like
Yep.
What about vasectomy’s? Paying $10000 for those would slow the flow of unwanted pregnancy much faster than $10000 for tube tying. Honestly most people would want more for tube tying because it’s quite invasive, especially compared to a vasectomy
2 Likes
What if it costs only $5000 to untie?
1 Like
Judging decisions others made, basically unavoidable human condition which would continue even with UBI.
I’m against UBI. I’m for humane squid game.
Snip, snap. Snip, snap. Snip, snap.
You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person!
4 Likes
if everyone were monogamous, it wouldn’t matter whether you tied boy tubes or girl tubes. But they aren’t. So tying girl tubes makes a much bigger impact on fertility. Sperm is cheap.