Do you believe a living wage and universal heath care are human rights that should be guaranteed and/or enforced by the government?

[Kelley1]

Does capitalism or socialism provide the most people with health care and a living wage?

[blueonblack22]

No. Nobody is “owed” these things just because they breathe air.

There is no such thing as “free”. And when the prints trillions of dollars out of thin air lo and behold hyperinflation happens. Also coronations are NOT sentient human beings that you can tax.

When you tax the f*ck out of a corporation the following will happen so they can remain (or they go bankrupt):

• they pass the additional expense to consumer by raising prices on goods and services
• they lower wages, benefits and raises for their employees
• they automate so they don’t need as much staff which contributes to fewer jobs. Expect A LOT more (if not almost all) future self check out lanes at target, Walmart, grocery chains, etc. in the future.
• they offshore or in some cases completely relocate to a less punishing country when it comes to taxes.
• worse case scenario they close up stores or file for bankruptcy completely. When that happens EVERYBODY loses. The consumer (fewer options), the worker (no job opportunities) and the government. You can’t tax a corporation that went bankrupt and no longer makes any revenue. Also this only empowers monopolies with fewer competition.

So to get universal basic income what will most likely happen will be higher taxes for the middle class and more inflation which ultimately defeats the whole purpose. But if you are an illegal alien (who doesn’t pay anything into taxes) it’s one hell of a nice deal.

[dreamstar72]

The end results will most likely be the United States will become a new third world nation.
Or out with the old “USA” nation to become the new “NATO” nation”

[blueonblack22]

@dreamstar72 many of the supporters of “socialism” do NOT know what they are asking for. The sociopaths influencers and leaders pushing know the the truth. But they those people don’t care because they will be insulated from it and/or become rich themselves.

[DrPepper12]

@dreamstar72. @-blue-. Why is it every other nation can accomplish this but we can't? Why? I desire Nordic democratic socialism

[blueonblack22]

@DrPepper12 have you ever been to a Nordic country? I have. I have been to Iceland.

It is a very homogenous population and only 300k people live on the entire island. People hold each other accountable and they were raised with the same values. That works for close knit communities.

But Iceland doesn’t have Mexico south of the border. Sweden doesn’t either. But Sweden took in a bunch of Syrian refugees which they sorely regretted later.

Anyway it’s extremely naive and asinine thinking that you can mirror off a Nordic country’s values onto the United States which has over 330M people and is a huge melting pot of multiple cultures. I’ve had face to face to conversations with Icelanders about the “Bernie sanders” approach and they scoffed at it.

And by the way Iceland has taken in refugees themselves and although many Icelanders won’t say it out loud they actually despise their government for doing that. The refugees are a burden on the tax payer funded state.

[DrPepper12]

I never said mirror and yes I'm aware of the differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous populations. It doesn't change the fact that we collectively can help each other and provide policy is that mitigate the negative externalities of capitalism.

[blueonblack22]

@DrPepper12 I personally have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars of my own money helping the local homeless in past years. But not recently because I have become beyond horrified and disgusted to what has happened to my home town (which was heavily politically influenced). But that’s another topic. However I just wanted to make a point I am NOT a so called “heartless” and “greedy” supporter of capitalism. I am still quietly making donations to several charities.

But what you are talking about government intervention and wealth redistribution which incentivizes people to NOT work. It does not motivate them to better through their own self agency.

We have already seen the negative ramifications of this. Look what the welfare state did to African American community via the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Black unemployment and single motherhood rates were far lower in the 1950s. But then the government stepped in with building the projects and giving welfare benefits to single mothers. Did that help the African American community?

That is just one example in history. And capitalism while not perfect has actually in aggregate given Americans a much higher quality of life.

I don’t doubt your good intentions to help humanity. But entitlement programs often cause more harm then good.

[OlderAndWiser]

EVERYTHING costs money. The government can't do anything without taking money from one person and using it for another.

SO. . . why should the government take my money and use it to benefit someone else? How does that encourage anyone to be self-reliant? Why shouldn't people be expected to take care of themselves?

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes, I agree with you

[BetaBucks]

Depends about the living wage thing. Does that mean one adult should get paid enough to live anywhere in the country and pay for all the wants and needs of a family of 5? In some places, that's 200k so on par with the average CEO or US politician. I don't think that much money exists. And I don't think governments should use violence to mandate that a company and I don't decide for ourselves how we want to trade labor for money. I would like hard jobs to pay more though.

Universal healthcare is also a "depends" kind of situation. Emergency medical needs should be tax funded, but routine care should not be. We fund fire, police, teachers, roads and a million other things, so I can't make sense of why a gunshot wound treatment isn't tax funded. The investigation into who the shooter was, is tax funded. Having your kids indoctrinated with political ideology is tax funded. House catches on fire? Tax funded. It seems like a weird balance tbh. I'm not a fan of gov or gov programs, but it just seems like emergency healthcare should be the first one, then everything else we can decide on later.

[DrPepper12]

UBI is a "top up" to percentage above the local poverty stats and floats with number of household members.

[normalice]

There are no human rights. Or at least no natural human rights. The thing we call rights are merely things we as a species had once agreed to always do for each other no matter what, but in most cases everyone who made that agreement is dead and the memory of their life lessons that drove them to organize and agree is no longer in this world.

The list of things is not long and having something on that list largely hinges on whether or not it can actually be done. Universal health care can not currently be done as there are nowhere near enough medical staff to treat everyone in the world. Moreover, for all the expensive gadgets our medical technology is still pretty primitive. We don't have the means to provide universal health care.

But on the other hand, there's not a good reason we shouldn't have those means. The reasons we can't are all bad reasons: high costs of med school, research being gate kept by patent holders, and a culture that distrusts doctors as elitists. We are too ignorant to deserve something quite so large. Even if it was somehow given to us, the neglect for the logistics needed to maintain it would soon have it falling apart. Unless of course there is a plan for that and people stick to it. But that would be organizing and people don't have the life lessons needed know they should do that.

[DrPepper12]

Obviously it would need to be phased on, not nationalized. It's very doable. Cut one week of the military burget

[SugarSugarplum]

No.
What you're really asking is:
"Do you think OTHER PEOPLE should be FORCED to earn your housing and medical care?"
As for minimum wage, that's just price fixing. It locks out unskilled/teen workers from the workplace, because who would pay a 16 year old $50 an hour to artlessly flip burgers?

[Kelley1]

You are absolutely correct but it sounds good so that is what people believe.

[DrPepper12]

70% of minimum wage earners are adults, not teens.

That's not what's being asked at all.

[SugarSugarplum]

@DrPepper12 False

[DrPepper12]

You are correct. I apologize.

In 2023, the age distribution of minimum wage earners in the United States shows that a significant portion are younger workers. Approximately 44.7% of all employees earning the federal minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. This age group represents a substantial segment of the minimum wage workforce, highlighting the prevalence of young workers in low-wage positions.

For workers aged 25 to 34, about 1.1% earn the federal minimum wage, and less than 1% of hourly workers older than 35 years earn at or below this rate. Despite common perceptions, most minimum wage earners are not teenagers; in fact, 88% of those earning the federal minimum wage are at least 20 years old, with an average age of around 35 years.
This data underscores that while younger workers make up a large proportion of minimum wage earners, a significant number of older individuals also rely on these wages, challenging the stereotype that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or entry-level workers.

[genericname85]

no they're not "human rights". if you wanna live in a society that agrees on mutually funding a universal health care system for their nation together, that's great. it's a mutual agreement, not a "human right". because human right means you're entitled to it just cause you're a human and then the question becomes: who's gonna pay for it.

same with wages. as an individual you have the right to choose your occupation. if an occupation doesn't pay a living wage, don't take it. if you wanna do minimum wages, that's horrible. cause you know what that does? artificially inflate prices, so that the poor get even more poor and can afford less.

[RavVid]

Who implemented the first universal pension? Bismark - a major autocrat and did so because he didn't want rebellions.

Nobody should die from lack of reasonable health care but that doesn't mean unlimited. About 80% of the cost is in peoples last years.

There should be enough support on social benefits for food and housing utilities. A decent standard of living is a vague concept that might include designer clothes in some peoples reckoning.

Not mentioned but most important is running an economy that enables most people to work and reach that decent standard of living. The IQ bell curve means that there needs to jobs for lower IQs. Low end factory work example.

[DrPepper12]

Very cogent well reasoned argument. TY!! Rare around here.

[RavVid]

@DrPepper12 Thanks. Tariffs ARE job subsidies that cost the consumer but are better than sit-down money for society. Unless we are happy for the sub 80 IQ cohort to starve to death than we have to provide for them.

I'd rather pay more for shoes and pay for drugs which is what a lot of welfare goes on.

Cheers

[RavVid]

than... not 'and pay for drugs'

[Snakeyes7]

It is not the government's job to sustain you. That's your job. Having the goevernment wipe your ass for you will get you dependent and you would be screwed if you found yourself in a survival situation and you have no idea what to do because daddy government won't be coming to save you immediately if at all.

And that is the government's goal. There is a reason why there have been farmers protesting, the government wants control over what people can grow on their own property let alone own property in general.

[DrPepper12]

Translation: "It's not we the people's job to sustain you"

Ok, what if anything do we owe each other?

[Snakeyes7]

@DrPepper12 by default? Common courtesy. Anything more they have to earn.

[DrPepper12]

Very definition of anti-civilization. We owe a great deal to each other by virtue of being human, you don't have to earn being human.

[Snakeyes7]

@DrPepper12 what we owe each other is common human decency, respect is earned if the person in question has done something worthy of that respect.

[DrPepper12]

Again. Anti civilization and Hobbesian.

[Snakeyes7]

@DrPepper12 im pretty sure it is Hobbesian to say that strangers deserve scorn by default. That's not what I am suggesting.

[DrPepper12]

And I am saying the "general welfare" is what we owe each other.

Like here:
"... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

[Snakeyes7]

@drpepper122 Welfare in this case refers to the government's duty to protect the rights of the people. Welfare meant something different back then than it does now.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. It meant *Well. fare* to fare the well. To take time and resources to help along on a journey - ya know, citizenship!

[Snakeyes7]

@DrPepper12 What a racist you are! The government should help its citizens only and not give priority to non-citizens? How dare you!

Joking aside, yes it means help but back then economists were retarded because Keynes didn't come and hit them with the retard ray until FDR.

[Snakeyes7]

And now they think the law of supply and demand is right wing propaganda or something.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. If you are human our shared govt, "we the (collective) people", (we) have an obligation to provide for all citizens healthcare, education and the general welfare (like food, shelter, utilities) in addition to defense, infrastructure, communication services (postal), law, courts, fire, police, EMS, tax system, standardized weights & measures, environmental protection, etc.

Capitalism is the best mechanism on the planet for securing daily needs; it is the job of governments to mitigate the negative externalities.

[Kelley1]

That sounds good but where is the money coming from? In the short term, it works. You start with 5 workers for every person in need. That is easy enough but then they multiply. A generating later there are 3 workers for every person in need. Two generations later there is 1 worker for every person in need and eventually, the system breaks down. It is a law. You always get more of what you pay for.

[DrPepper12]

Collective taxes of course. Demographics are always a challenge but a manageable one

[Kelley1]

It is manageable until it is not. Throughout all, history, without exception, it goes to not. That will happen in the U. S. Although millions of people will die, that doesn't mean all the people die. It only means the government fails followed by the existing government being replaced with a different one--probably with a dictator. The dictator may not last. Regardless, in time, there is a working government. Then the process of being manageable may start all over again.

[rebeliouse]

its hard to say as living wage can affect inflation and therefore push up prices above reach

universal basic income is weird one too if people get that would living cost just be raised to swallow it all up and then no one could do anything else but live

how come your profile pic is looking down your cleavage?

@Kelley1

how come u dont follow me?

[Kelley1]

@rebeliouse Just for you I changed my profile photo.

[rebeliouse]

nice @Kelley1

[Anonymous]

The problem with your list of services you declare nearness for a "living wage" is very arbitrary and few if any of it existed as something most people could afford to buy rather than provide for themselfs just 200 years ago.

Capitalism is what made theses services affordable to buy by most people in the first place.

So you are with theses demands very much "raising the bar", and that is only ok if you do it locally, as in you let people who can't meet that bar in productivity leave and go somewhere else where they are free to live by the standards their own work can justify.

I wouldn't even throw the crude city minimum wage law at this, but rather set the minimum wage of every business as a ratio of the cost of living within 20 minutes commute of that place of work.

This gives employers a incentive to preferably develop their business's in less expensive areas of the city.

[bayoubob]

Nope. What you see happening is stores are no longer 24x7. That's a major loss in jobs right there. McD's? No longer can they afford Humans manning the station, so robots are put in place. Same thing with Uber, Lyft. Maybe not the same thing, but they will pull out from Dem Ran Shitholes.

[bayoubob]

Then again it's the same thing. Humans being replaced by cars that drive themselves. I am a first year Millennial, 1982. I love self check out lanes. My Boomer Dad did not. I can get in and out quicker, plus I can pack my goods thoroughly, double bag etc. Always putting the goods in the right bags and positions as to not fuck things up! We had that in the 80's, we could double bag with paper bags, we could also choose for the store to bag for us. So, I say, stores like Walmart can provide cheaper prices, vs paying people to bag your shit. To me it's a wash. As in the cheaper prices for all, supersedes the job losses.

[noohair]

Who pays for all this? Human rights, no. You are young, you don't know how expensive this will be. If you want free things, are you willing to work for free? The only person I know that worked for free was President Trump. He did not take his presidental salary while in office.

[Unap0logetic_]

Yes because I feel like no human today should still be suffering from being homeless or stressed out because they cannot afford the cost of living. There should be some sort of universal income set for people who make a certain amount of money for starters and then that way they’re able to live on their own and actually make things happen for themselves. Where I live most people have roommates. It sucks being a roommate.

[exitseven]

No, we live in a capitalist society. The Hader you work, the luckier you get.

[Kelley1]

Not really but that is how it should be.

[exitseven]

@Kelley1 Yes, it is not always the case. Sometimes it is who you know and sometimes it is who you blow.

[DrPepper12]

True but capitalism MUST be mitigated and regulated to address the negative externalities the market creates.

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 it depends on who does the regulating.

[DrPepper12]

WE THE PEOPLE do the regulating through our elected prostitutes!

[AviatorTom]

There are no guarantees in life. I have a plaque on the wall in my office that reads...

Life owes you a living, and you have to work hard to get it.

[SweetDripp]

If a "living wage" is considered a human right, a certain level of societal contribution should be a "societal expectation."

[Dongie]

No. I don't like all this close quarter crap. Like they're a god or something. Just get out of the way with government. You gonna make a person with a small business take care of employees first over his own family? That'll work. Watch how many businesses go out of business right off. Or with AI goodbye jobs.

[DrPepper12]

The question implies nothing of the kind!!

[Dongie]

No it doesn't and don't dare figure out what comes of it like leaving the damn border open for 4 years while kids and all are murdered.

[Guacamole409]

Free healthcare doesn’t work if you invite the entire world to come and get it in your country.

[Kelly6]

@guacamole409 i was confused to answer this question, but this answer works best

[Guacamole409]

@Kelly6
It's just common sense.

[Lliam]

No. They are both traps and come with conditions. You loose your freedom.

Look at the bleakness of people's lives in the old Soviet Union. People didn't live, they subsisted.

[OtterMan68]

No. If someone has to supply you with it, it's not a right

No one has to supply me with free speech for example.

[zagor]

I don't know; should someone who does a really bad job be guaranteed a job/wage?

[DrPepper12]

No. A UBI not a job wage

[zagor]

@DrPepper12 She said a living wage, not UBI. UBI is paying someone for existing.

[DrPepper12]

Either, or or both.

[Bricealan]

You are talking about Socialism... and no, I don't believe in Socialism.

[RoronoaZoro8]

Yes I agree. Everything should be provided for free by the government.

[DrPepper12]

Isn't the government "we the people" so it would be a collective endeavor by us for us?

[MrGSpotHer]

Where I am there's a minimum wage and free health care

[DrPepper12]

A civilized sane nation to be sure... So it's not the USA.

[MrGSpotHer]

I don't know they are fking shit up here at a rapid rate and stupidity seems to be contagious...

[gatixek710]

Lol, no. No one can even define “living wage”

[msc545]

Absolutely YES!

[TallAnon]

I see no reason why we wouldn't nowadays

[Dongie]

Because it isn't feasible. Think about it.

[TallAnon]

I've thought about it, seems feasible.

[Dongie]

You own a business and have 3 employees. The government states what you have to pay them. It's double what you paid those 3 18 year olds and puts you out of business. What was solved?

[TallAnon]

Why would it work like that at all? Sounds like the worst implementation.

[Dongie]

How else?

[Twalli]

Health insurance is.

[DrPepper12]

Yup!!

[Agape93]

Yeap

[jahaims]

Nope

[Pterodon]

Nope

[DrPepper12]

Why not?

[Pterodon]

@DrPepper12 survival of the fittest.

[DrPepper12]

That is at odds with the very concept of civilization. Hobbesian life is "nasty, brutish & short". We are social creatures like it or not.

[Pterodon]

@DrPepper12 doesn’t mean we share

[DrPepper12]

Uncivilized