Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/02 15:13:55
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income.
I've seen comments that since someone has a refrigerator, they are abusing welfare...
There are definitely people out there who think that unless someone on welfare has the most miserable and austere existence then they're somehow cheating or gaming the system. The reality is that when someone is in a miserable and austere existence, it doesn't drive them to make things better, it puts them in survival mode. Into a state where things can never get better.
I was in a coffee shop recently and a guy got angry at his daughter because she was on some form of assistance and had a smart phone. He started yelling at her for wasting tax payers money and how dare she spend her welfare money on that and she should be reported for abusing the system and on and on for a couple of minutes. She burst into tears and yelled that a charity that was running a job search center gave it to her so she could have a phone number for her resume before storming out of the place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 15:14:42
2016/02/02 20:41:59
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income.
What are the hard numbers for these "cot to grave" indolents? Do they include the disabled?
I mean I watched the first season of Shameless on Netflix, but I understand it is an entertainment series, not a documentary.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/02/02 20:52:13
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income.
I've seen comments that since someone has a refrigerator, they are abusing welfare...
There are definitely people out there who think that unless someone on welfare has the most miserable and austere existence then they're somehow cheating or gaming the system. The reality is that when someone is in a miserable and austere existence, it doesn't drive them to make things better, it puts them in survival mode. Into a state where things can never get better.
I was in a coffee shop recently and a guy got angry at his daughter because she was on some form of assistance and had a smart phone. He started yelling at her for wasting tax payers money and how dare she spend her welfare money on that and she should be reported for abusing the system and on and on for a couple of minutes. She burst into tears and yelled that a charity that was running a job search center gave it to her so she could have a phone number for her resume before storming out of the place.
It is this type of ignorance that paints welfare with such a broad brush.
2016/02/02 21:32:35
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income.
notprop wrote: Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.
It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.
There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.
I don't think I took a position on whether or not they're an incentive not to work did I? And I believe hotsauce is firmly in the, "They're not" camp. So I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as I was just trying to get some more data into the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want me to Share my opinion I've seen people who really need it just to survive or get by, and I've seen people abuse it as well. I'd assume the abuse is in the minority.
notprop wrote: Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.
It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.
There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.
I don't think I took a position on whether or not they're an incentive not to work did I? And I believe hotsauce is firmly in the, "They're not" camp. So I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as I was just trying to get some more data into the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want me to Share my opinion I've seen people who really need it just to survive or get by, and I've seen people abuse it as well. I'd assume the abuse is in the minority.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Except, Y'know a better life and more spending money. This "They wont want to work" is bull considering that most people stay on welfars less than a year.
What kind of welfare? The majority seems to be on AFDC for more than a year, with ~27% on it for 2-5 years.
feeder wrote: What are the hard numbers for these "cot to grave" indolents? Do they include the disabled?
I mean I watched the first season of Shameless on Netflix, but I understand it is an entertainment series, not a documentary.
Cameron has talked about something like 200,000 families in such a situation, which might indicate up to a million including their children who it should be remembered have not yet nearly reached the grave and might get an education and jobs. But I don't think there are any firm statistics. It's a kind of bogeyman that appeals to people's sense of drama.
notprop wrote: Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.
It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.
There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.
I don't think I took a position on whether or not they're an incentive not to work did I? And I believe hotsauce is firmly in the, "They're not" camp. So I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as I was just trying to get some more data into the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want me to Share my opinion I've seen people who really need it just to survive or get by, and I've seen people abuse it as well. I'd assume the abuse is in the minority.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Except, Y'know a better life and more spending money. This "They wont want to work" is bull considering that most people stay on welfars less than a year.
What kind of welfare? The majority seems to be on AFDC for more than a year, with ~27% on it for 2-5 years.
notprop wrote: Yeah that's US Welfare not the Cot to grave, house included welfare that is available in some parts of Europe.
It was just a response to hotsauceman1- they're from the states as well, and I was curious which type of welfare they were talking about. I know lots of folks on different types of government assistance, and poverty is a hard rut to climb out of once you're in it as far as I'm aware.
There is literally no point. Anyone who can look at the evidence and claim benefits are an incentive not to work has either fallen victim to #'s 2, 3 & 4 and requires persuasion of a type and length that can only come from someone they know personally IRL, or else...well, Rule 1 and all that. Either way a forum post isn't going to change their mind because they don't want to hear it.
I don't think I took a position on whether or not they're an incentive not to work did I? And I believe hotsauce is firmly in the, "They're not" camp. So I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as I was just trying to get some more data into the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want me to Share my opinion I've seen people who really need it just to survive or get by, and I've seen people abuse it as well. I'd assume the abuse is in the minority.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Except, Y'know a better life and more spending money. This "They wont want to work" is bull considering that most people stay on welfars less than a year.
What kind of welfare? The majority seems to be on AFDC for more than a year, with ~27% on it for 2-5 years.
19%+15%= 34% on it for under a year. so yeah, most people are on it less than a year
No... The total of folks on AFDC for a year or more is 19.3%(1-2 years)+26.9%2-5 years)+19.6%(5+ years)=65.8%. Although at this point this is probably off topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We can take it to PM of you want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 17:52:28
The future of what? Where exactly does the money come from?
Money isn't real. It can come from anywhere. Especially when work is free due to robots. This really is the future.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2016/06/05 18:29:17
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would have guaranteed everyone in the Alpine nation an unconditional basic income, according to projections published Sunday by public broadcaster SRF1.
The plan could have seen people in this wealthy nation of 8 million people receive about 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,560) per month — enough to cover their basic needs.
Proponents argued that a basic income would free people from meaningless toil and allow them to pursue more productive or creative goals in life. Critics said the plan would explode the state budget and encourage idleness, arguments that appear to have convinced voters.
Based on a partial count of results from 19 Swiss cantons (states), the gfs.bern polling group calculated that 78 percent of voters opposed the measure against 22 percent in favor.
The Swiss government itself advised voters to reject the proposal put forward by left-wing campaigners who collected the necessary 100,000 signatures to force a vote on the issue.
But the idea has won over some economists, who say it could replace traditional welfare payments and give everybody the same chances in life.
Salaried workers who earned more than basic income would have received no extra money, while children would have received one-quarter of the total for adults.
The Dutch city of Utrecht is planning a two-year experiment with a similar plan, handing money to residents who already receive welfare benefits.
The unconditional basic income proposal was one of five measures up for decision nationwide Sunday. Proposals to reform publicly owned companies and financing of transport routes was rejected, while voters backed plans to simplify the application procedures for asylum-seekers and another that will allow screening of embryos before they are implanted in the womb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/05 18:29:28
2016/06/05 19:00:02
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
I think it's an idea whose time is nearly here, though. It depends how fast expert systems and robots start to plough into traditional middle class jobs.
We've already seen old-fashioned bank management succumb to computer moderated credit rating systems, for example.
I think it's an idea whose time is nearly here, though. It depends how fast expert systems and robots start to plough into traditional middle class jobs.
We've already seen old-fashioned bank management succumb to computer moderated credit rating systems, for example.
It's actually closer to 4:1 if I'm doing my math right. 78% voted against it.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/06/05 22:53:33
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
I think it's an idea whose time is nearly here, though. It depends how fast expert systems and robots start to plough into traditional middle class jobs.
We've already seen old-fashioned bank management succumb to computer moderated credit rating systems, for example.
It's actually closer to 4:1 if I'm doing my math right. 78% voted against it.
The 2:1 calculation must have been the work of that computer moderated math that is replacing the middle class
I think they shot too high with the minimum. I know $2500 doesn't go very far in Switzerland, but their current welfare rates are $960 a month. I think this guaranteed minimum income should provide people with enough to survive like welfare. I think a lot more people would have voted for it if it was like $1000-$1100 and replaced means tested welfare.
We will see this idea continue to surface more and more as long as the world economy sort of maintains its size and doesn't grow much as in that situation you want an increased velocity to money and one of the best ways to get it is to put the money in the hands of the poorest in your country.
2016/06/05 23:43:49
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
The minimum was definitely too high, it needs to be at a rate where it will cover basic needs (food, shelter, heating, phone, internet, public transport, some leisure spending) without funding anything particularly luxurious (privately owned car/ house/ holidays abroad etc.).
They've also been reporting that Corbyn's shadow chancellor is considering the idea for the UK Labour party as one of the core pieces of its manifesto.
In theory, it could actually cost less than the current benefits system, due to scrapping the billions of pounds of red tape involved with twice-weekly jobsekeer's interviews, jobcentres, Atos assessments etc.
Currently we pay more on the systems designed to make life difficult for the unemployed than we do actually giving them the money they need to not live lives of misery and poverty (which in turn lead to higher crime rates and lots of knock-on effects to society).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 09:51:18
2016/06/06 03:36:10
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
scarletsquig wrote: The minimum was definitely too high, it needs to be at a rate where it will cover basic needs (food, shelter, heating, phone, internet, public transport, some leisure spending) without funding anything particularly luxurious (privately owned car/ house/ holidays abroad etc.).
They've also been reporting that Corbyn's shadow chancellor is considering the idea for the UK Labour party as one of the core pieces of its manifesto.
In theory, it could actually cost less than the current benefits system, due to scrapping the billions of pounds of red tape involved with twice-weekly jobsekeer's interviews, jobcentres, Atos assessments etc.
Currently we pay on the systems designed to make life difficult for the unemployed than we do actually giving them the money they need to not live lives of misery and poverty (which in turn lead to higher crime rates and lots of knock-on effects to society).
For a lot of people a privately owned car isn't a luxury. If you live in a rural area like I do, where public transport is fairly dismal and expensive, a car is a necessity for a lot of ordinary activities. I commute by train at the moment, but if I had a job in a less accessible place, I would need a car to get to the new job. Not having one would limit my ability to change jobs or seek a new job if necessary. On top of this, the time and travel costs of family outings by public transport are excessive, as well as routine things like getting to the supermarket and taking children to activities. This illustrates the difficulty of working out a suitable rate of income.
I don't know what the base level universal income should be. Clearly it would have to be a balance between a country's ability to pay it and basic living costs. Perhaps it might vary by area, but there is something to be said for making it a completely flat benefit. In the UK that might encourage people to go and live in places like Liverpool. They would spend their spare money to the benefit of the local economy.
As you mentioned, there would be a huge saving in bureaucracy, though this would also throw a lot of officials out of work.
The first step would at least be making in as much as welfare rates. I'm not sure it should pay for costs like a car even if someone lives in a rural area. Maybe eventually it can be extended to that, but where it needs to start is in providing people the bare minimums to allow for human flourishing without treating them like criminals and demanding they spend time continually proving they need the assistance.
My take on this is 100% pragmatic. The costs of alleviating poverty through this method are simply lower than means tested programs on a case by case basis. It's like places where housing a homeless person (in supportive housing with all the programs they need) will cost the government $11000-25000 a year but the costs of having a homeless person on the street (emergency medical costs, policing costs, incarceration) can be $50,000 to $100,000 or more a year.
If I had to guess why most of the Swiss voted against this it would be the combination of the high rate and an immigration issue.
2016/06/06 14:30:35
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
How is giving people money from the govt substantially different from lowering taxes so people keep more of their money in the first place? Doesn't seem to make sense to give the government money just so they can give it back.
If you the govt supports everyone with enough money to live off of with some degree of comfort than the program will discourage work. If the govt pays people a small amount of money to supplement incomes then it would be cheaper and more efficient to just give everyone a tax credit.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/06 17:08:26
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
Prestor Jon wrote: How is giving people money from the govt substantially different from lowering taxes so people keep more of their money in the first place? Doesn't seem to make sense to give the government money just so they can give it back.
Because there is a cut-off where you essentially dont pay taxes.
Like me, I got every single penny I paid to the Govt. I basically paid 0$ in taxes.
And lowering taxes will not give youthe amount needed. for people making 25000, 2500 is 10% of what they make, their not paying that much. While riche people would barely feel having that money taken out.
Still, im for welfare. But I dislike generational welfare and welfare as a job, you are not meant to be on it for your whole life.
But I also think there should be free daycares that are for those on welfare who wish to go to school and improve their life. Welfare should give people incentives is what I mean.
5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
2016/06/06 17:57:39
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
Prestor Jon wrote: How is giving people money from the govt substantially different from lowering taxes so people keep more of their money in the first place? Doesn't seem to make sense to give the government money just so they can give it back.
Because there is a cut-off where you essentially dont pay taxes.
Like me, I got every single penny I paid to the Govt. I basically paid 0$ in taxes.
And lowering taxes will not give youthe amount needed. for people making 25000, 2500 is 10% of what they make, their not paying that much. While riche people would barely feel having that money taken out.
Still, im for welfare. But I dislike generational welfare and welfare as a job, you are not meant to be on it for your whole life.
But I also think there should be free daycares that are for those on welfare who wish to go to school and improve their life. Welfare should give people incentives is what I mean.
That's why we have the EIC, Earned Income Tax Credit. You work you get paid you don't get paid enough to owe taxes so the govt gives you a refund plus extra money to help you. Tax credits or cuts to the tax rate both have the same basic function of reducing the tax revenue collected and increasing the money refunded to tax payers with "payers" just being everybody who files.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/06 18:30:18
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
I'm disappointed this didn't pass. It should be obvious to anyone that simply cutting a cheque for everyone in the country is more cost effective than administering a means-tested welfare system.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/06/06 19:02:18
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
feeder wrote: I'm disappointed this didn't pass. It should be obvious to anyone that simply cutting a cheque for everyone in the country is more cost effective than administering a means-tested welfare system.
Nope, Infact it is likely going to be LESS cost effective. Because as you said EVERYONE gets one. The tme, effort and so forth would be tremendous, it would start an entire industry and part in the government. How do you get it to everyone, how is it distributed? is it digital? everyone gets a card? How would this work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: EITC is just a government subsidy of corporations so that the corporations don't have to pay people decently.
Still, im for welfare. But I dislike generational welfare and welfare as a job, you are not meant to be on it for your whole life.
The thing is...Most people on welfare actually have a job. The job just doesn't pay enough to live on and feed their children.
Yes, but welfare doesnt offer a chance or incentive to improve, just stay the same.
I say welfare needs a time limit, and you haveto appeal at the end of that time limit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 19:05:19
5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
2016/06/06 19:12:57
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
feeder wrote: I'm disappointed this didn't pass. It should be obvious to anyone that simply cutting a cheque for everyone in the country is more cost effective than administering a means-tested welfare system.
Nope, Infact it is likely going to be LESS cost effective. Because as you said EVERYONE gets one. The tme, effort and so forth would be tremendous, it would start an entire industry and part in the government. How do you get it to everyone, how is it distributed? is it digital? everyone gets a card? How would this work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: EITC is just a government subsidy of corporations so that the corporations don't have to pay people decently.
Still, im for welfare. But I dislike generational welfare and welfare as a job, you are not meant to be on it for your whole life.
The thing is...Most people on welfare actually have a job. The job just doesn't pay enough to live on and feed their children.
Yes, but welfare doesnt offer a chance or incentive to improve, just stay the same.
I say welfare needs a time limit, and you haveto appeal at the end of that time limit.
There is realistically no chance to improve. If you already have a job or two and are still on government assistance suddenly cutting off government assistance means that you are likely to not have food or shelter or medical care. Plus your children are not going to have those things either. The lazy generational welfare myth keeps on getting perpetuating though.
There is a structural problem and government assistance is an attempt at a band aid while trying to make it so that the people receiving government assistance are displayed as some how being lazy and at fault for their situation.
2016/06/06 19:14:51
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
Prestor Jon wrote: How is giving people money from the govt substantially different from lowering taxes so people keep more of their money in the first place? ...
...
People whose income is too low to pay taxes gain nothing from remission of taxes.
Prestor Jon wrote: How is giving people money from the govt substantially different from lowering taxes so people keep more of their money in the first place? ...
...
People whose income is too low to pay taxes gain nothing from remission of taxes.
That's already covered by the EITC. People who don't earn enough to pay taxes can still get additional money refunded to them after they file their taxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: EITC is just a government subsidy of corporations so that the corporations don't have to pay people decently.
The Other Milton Friedman: A Conservative With a Social Welfare Program
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: November 23, 2006
Milton Friedman, who died last week at 94, was the patron saint of small-government conservatism. Conservatives who invoke his name in defense of Social Security privatization and other cutbacks in the social safety net might thus be surprised to learn that he was also the architect of the most successful social welfare program of all time.
Market forces can accomplish wonderful things, he realized, but they cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs. His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. A family of four with no market income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some fraction — perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less the $6,000 tax on its earnings).
Mr. Friedman’s proposal was undoubtedly motivated in part by his concern for the welfare of the least fortunate. But he was above all a pragmatist, and he emphasized the superiority of the negative income tax over conventional welfare programs on purely practical grounds. If the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money, he reasoned, the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. He saw no advantage in hiring armies of bureaucrats to dispense food stamps, energy stamps, day care stamps and rent subsidies.
As always, Mr. Friedman’s policy prescriptions were shaped by his desire to minimize adverse economic incentives, a feature that architects of earlier welfare programs had largely ignored. Those programs, each administered by a separate bureaucracy, typically reduced a family’s benefits by some fraction of each increment in earned income. Rates of 50 percent were common, so a family participating in four separate programs might see its total benefits fall by $2 for each extra dollar it earned. Under the circumstances, no formal training in economics was necessary to see that working didn’t pay. In contrast, someone who worked additional hours under Mr. Friedman’s plan would always take home additional after-tax income.
The negative income tax was never adopted in the end, because of concern that a payment large enough to support an urban family of four might induce many to go on the dole. With a payment of $6,000 per person, for example, rural communes of 30 would have a pooled annual payment of $180,000, which they could supplement by growing vegetables and raising animals. Because these groups could live quite comfortably at taxpayer expense, there would be an eager audience for accounts of their doings on the nightly news. Political support for such a program would be difficult to sustain.
Instead, Congress adopted the earned-income tax credit, essentially the same program except that only people who were employed received benefits. One of the few American welfare programs widely adopted in other countries, the earned-income tax credit has proved far more efficient than conventional programs, just as Mr. Friedman predicted. Yet because it covers only those who work, it cannot be the sole weapon in society’s antipoverty arsenal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 20:21:26
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/06 20:23:36
Subject: Swiss residents to vote on referendum to guarantee basic monthly income. (Update on Page 4).
skyth wrote: I suppose 'feed your children' could be an opinion. After all, if you give them half a slice of bread, you are technically 'feeding' them...
The thing is, why punish children for being born to poor parents?
People are free to have as many children as they want. If they want to have more children then they can support that's a probem of their own creation.
If your problem is that you want corporations to pay higher wages then the solution isn't for the federal and/or state governments to pay out welfare to increase incomes. That will have no impact on wages and actively works to keep them low. If corporations know that the govt will provide low paid employees with assistance then corporations will pay low wages and direct employees to file for govt assistance. Why would corporations pay more if they know the govt is there to pick up the slack?
Low wages are much more of a supply/demand issue than a corporate greed issue. Sure corporations don't want to pay more than what is necessary to fill the job and get the work done but low paying jobs are easily filled by an abundant pool of applicants willing to take the job so there is no force pushing for higher wages. Government assistance dampens any push for higher wages even more. If a person doesn't have the skills required to do work that is valuable enough to the employer to be worth a high wage that's a worker problem not an employer problem. If an employee isn't contributed more value than there's no reason for an employer to raise the wage. If a person doesn't have valuable skills and therefore can only work low wage jobs then that person needs to either make peace with the fact that he/she has to live within his/her meager means or develop a more valuable skill set. Artificially inflating the cost of low wage labor only reduces jobs and makes it harder for people without skills to get work.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
(more)
(building)
(less)
