A question about lowest-income workers, for Conservatives/Libertarians

[the makeout hobo]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

 

[Jerry]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

Create more opportunity for the workers by lowering their employer's cost of business, starting with the complete and total repeal of ObamaCare.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Create more opportunity for the workers by lowering their employer's cost of business, starting with the complete and total repeal of ObamaCare.

How would lowering their costs of business result in a higher standard of living for the employees?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

All these things currently exist in this world, reduced cost/free education, mandated employee benefits, a social safety net, raises in the minimum wage and tax breaks.
Why haven't people become un-poor by now?

 

[the makeout hobo]

All these things currently exist in this world, reduced cost/free education, mandated employee benefits, a social safety net, raises in the minimum wage and tax breaks.
Why haven't people become un-poor by now?

Harry, I'm not trying to turn this into yet another argument about these programs, there have been hundreds of threads about them on debatepolitics. Instead, I'm appealing to the right to share alternative ideas, see what solutions are floating around that haven't been tried.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Harry, I'm not trying to turn this into yet another argument about these programs, there have been hundreds of threads about them on debatepolitics. Instead, I'm appealing to the right to share alternative ideas, see what solutions are floating around that haven't been tried.

I'm not necessarily against social programs or top down solutions, but I've yet to find a social cure all.
They don't exist.

To a degree, we just have to come to accept that some people, will be poor indefinitely, regardless of what programs exist to help them.

 

[bonfire]

in a completely free market society, the prices of pretty much everything will be lowered. This will improve poor people's quality of life.

To advance the discussion, can we agree that the world is non-utopian and will always have poor people who could care less about improving their lot in life?

 

[Redress]

Create more opportunity for the workers by lowering their employer's cost of business, starting with the complete and total repeal of ObamaCare.

Why do you assume savings would be passed along to workers?

 

[Redress]

All these things currently exist in this world, reduced cost/free education, mandated employee benefits, a social safety net, raises in the minimum wage and tax breaks.
Why haven't people become un-poor by now?

The goal of those programs is not to eliminate poverty.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The goal of those programs is not to eliminate poverty.

But they can, it's just that people find a level of comfort within them and choose not to go further.

 

[DA60]

I am neither Lib, Con or Libertarian (though I am much closer to the last one then the other two)...but I will answer anywho.

The way to help the lowest wage earners is get government COMPLETELY out of the private sector and ALL business (except for health and safety regulations), pass a balanced budget law that only allows for deficits during a declared war, eliminate business/corporate taxes and eliminate all welfare (except for the elderly and the disabled) and replace it with government run 'shelters' that provide emergency food/clothing/shelter/medical/dental to anyone that needs it (though children get full medical/dental benefits - it's not their fault their parents are deadbeats).

This would remove any reason to make do with less and have the poor just sit on their butts getting government checks and just 'getting by'.

Then they will have to go out and work for anything they want beyond the basic necessities of life.

And if they cannot find it - oh well.


Most people around the world would love to have the basic necessities of life guaranteed to them.

If that is not good enough for someone - tough.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

in a completely free market society, the prices of pretty much everything will be lowered. This will improve poor people's quality of life.

To advance the discussion, can we agree that the world is non-utopian and will always have poor people who could care less about improving their lot in life?

I agree but the thing IS.... the percentage of people that have no desire to or can NOT work, and those that have a HUGE desire to work and make a good living.

 

[Jerry]

How would lowering their costs of business result in a higher standard of living for the employees?

Lowering the cost of business not only creates more opportunity for the prospective/employee, but also lowers their cost of living.

The standard of living is in the hands of the employee. What you do or don't do to businesses is irrelevant. You can raise the minimum wage as high as you want, but if people are still blowing their money on **** they can't really afford, on credit cards, etc, then your efforts are wasted.

It's not how much money you have, it's how you manage it. There's very little the government can do in the way of personal economic fidelity, but one of the few things it *can* do is create more opportunity so that those who would take advantage of opportunity, can.

Fact is, not everyone is going to take advantage of an opportunity. Many people are going to sit on their hands and wait for the government to bail them out. Don't enable these people, let them (literally) die. "He who doesn't work, shouldn't eat".

This is natural selection. This is evolution. Don't try to *create* The Great Society, you will only run out of other people's money long before you ever accomplish it.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I am neither Lib, Con or Libertarian (though I am much closer to the last one then the other two)...but I will answer anywho.

The way to help the lowest wage earners is get government COMPLETELY out of the private sector and ALL business (except for health and safety regulations), pass a balanced budget law that only allows for deficits during a declared war, eliminate business/corporate taxes and eliminate all welfare (except for the elderly and the disabled) and replace it with government run 'shelters' that provide emergency food/clothing/shelter/medical/dental to anyone that needs it (though children get full medical/dental benefits - it's not their fault their parents are deadbeats).

This would remove any reason to make do with less and have the poor just sit on their butts getting government checks and just 'getting by'.

Then they will have to go out and work for anything they want beyond the basic necessities of life.

And if they cannot find it - oh well.


Most people around the world would love to have the basic necessities of life guaranteed to them.

If that is not good enough for someone - tough.

So just so we're clear: if you have an employee that is working full time at a retail job and is not able to make enough money to provide all of their needs, they should be given absolute necessities. Other than that, that's just too bad, and they can just deal with it?

 

[Jerry]

Why do you assume savings would be passed along to workers?

The savings are manifest in not getting laid off or hours cut.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Lowering the cost of business not only creates more opportunity for the prospective/employee, but also lowers their cost of living.

The standard of living is in the hands of the employee. What you do or don't do to businesses is irrelevant. You can raise the minimum wage as high as you want, but if people are still blowing their money on **** they can't really afford, on credit cards, etc, then your efforts are wasted.

It's not how much money you have, it's how you manage it. There's very little the government can do in the way of personal economic fidelity, but one of the few things it *can* do is create more opportunity so that those who would take advantage of opportunity, can.

Fact is, not everyone is going to take advantage of an opportunity. Many people are going to sit on their hands and wait for the government to bail them out. Don't enable these people, let them (literally) die. "He who doesn't work, shouldn't eat".

This is natural selection. This is evolution. Don't try to *create* The Great Society, you will only run out of other people's money long before you ever accomplish it.

This is really the thing, there is only so much you can do, to cater to someone before they need to take over and start fixing the rest.

 

[DA60]

So just so we're clear: if you have an employee that is working full time at a retail job and is not able to make enough money to provide all of their needs, they should be given absolute necessities. Other than that, that's just too bad, and they can just deal with it?

Yes, providing they are not mentally or physically handicapped and assuming the government is balanced it's budget, has eliminated business/corporate taxes, eliminated regulations - except health and safety - AND provides government 'shelters' to provide the basic necessities of life to all that need it.

 

[Homer.]

God, I hate free market libertarians with a passion. They have such nasty views.

 

[DA60]

God, I hate free market libertarians with a passion. They have such nasty views.

You passionately hate people you have never met strictly because of their economic views?

Okaaaaaaaay.

 

[Cephus]

Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be living wage jobs. They are entry-level jobs for people who are still living with their parents, meant to get work experience. No one ought to try to live on their own on a minimum wage job and they certainly shouldn't try to raise a family on one. Anyone who does is absurdly irresponsible.

 

[Cephus]

Harry, I'm not trying to turn this into yet another argument about these programs, there have been hundreds of threads about them on debatepolitics. Instead, I'm appealing to the right to share alternative ideas, see what solutions are floating around that haven't been tried.

The best idea is for these people not to be stupid to begin with. It's for people not to drop out of high school, get involved in drugs and gangs, not knock up some girl or get knocked up, work the low-wage job while you're in school, getting an education, get some experience, get some promotions and *THEN* move out on your own and do all the other things. That's how it's supposed to work. It's hardly our fault you have stupid people being irresponsible.

 

[Paul Austin]

Cut government spending

It will leave more in the workers pay packet & lower priced products for him to buy, its a double win.

 

[Homer.]

God, I hate free market libertarians with a passion. They have such nasty views.

You passionately hate people you have never met strictly because of their economic views?

Okaaaaaaaay.

When they spout nonsense like this: "The best idea is for these people not to be stupid to begin with. It's for people not to drop out of high school, get involved in drugs and gangs, not knock up some girl or get knocked up, work the low-wage job while you're in school, getting an education, get some experience, get some promotions and *THEN* move out on your own and do all the other things. That's how it's supposed to work. It's hardly our fault you have stupid people being irresponsible."

Then yes, I hate them. Saying everyone with a low paid job is a stupid, drug addicted, high school drop out is stupid and inaccurate.

 

[Homer.]

The best idea is for these people not to be stupid to begin with. It's for people not to drop out of high school, get involved in drugs and gangs, not knock up some girl or get knocked up, work the low-wage job while you're in school, getting an education, get some experience, get some promotions and *THEN* move out on your own and do all the other things. That's how it's supposed to work. It's hardly our fault you have stupid people being irresponsible.

You're saying every low paid job in America should be done by school children? How are school children meant to do full time jobs & still get an education? Have you even thought about this at all?

And well done for insulting every low paid worker. The next time you're in a restaurant, you should tell the waiter that he must be stupid high school drop out involved with drugs. I'm sure he wouldn't do nasty stuff with you're food in the kitchen.

 

[Master PO]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

well i am a constitutional Conservative, their are only a few in congress.

i am going to post and follow with things you have said.

first the minimum wage is unconstitutional, governments have no authority to set wages. so are social safety nets by the federal government, as is free college, and forcing business to provide benefits, since none of this is in the constitution.

America is in deep debt, because of its war state, and its welfare state, both which we cannot afford, we have to have job growth, and this is not going to happen as long as government regulations are heavy and keep coming and being placed in business, regulation and taxes must be cut, taxes must be made simple and easy to pay,no deductions, just a simple low rate, and everyone needs to pay something, if you want to have a voice in government, you need to have skin in the game. the federal government needs to be totally out of the private sector, and turn it over to the power of the states, where it is supposed to be, where 50 states compete against each other, for being the best state where people wish to live with low taxes and few regulations and more freedom. government needs to protect the rights of all people including (property owners.)

Washington has to cut its spending and reduce the size and scope of government and work to pay our debt, strengthen the dollar to give it more buying power for the poor.later the federal reserve needs to be gotten rid of and the power of money return to the people, instead of the big bankers. put the federal government back inside the confines of the constitution, and make them do their job, that is authorized to them and no more.

this is my short version.