mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/09/86)
In article <897@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > . . . > I contend that if one is committing one's time to providing you with a > service that you feel you need, than you **** O W E **** that individual > sufficent recompense that they can afford to pay for acceptable shelter, > food and clothing. To suggest that any person who is devoting themselves > 8 (or more) hours per day to meeting **YOUR** needs doesn't deserve a > living wage (and in the current economy, minimum wage most certainly is > **NOT** a living wage) is tantamount to feudalism. Ah, I see the social-democrats are trying to repeal the laws of the marketplace again (*sigh*). I wonder -- just where is this "sufficient recompense" going to COME from? (The government, I assume; either by direct taxation, or by debasing the currency by printing up dollars to spend on "social programs.") Mr. Keller, whether I believe a worker at McD's "deserves" a living wage is irrelevant. I am willing to pay a certain amount for my cheeseburger, and if it rises above a certain amount, I am going to look elsewhere. I fail to see how I "owe" anything other than the $1.69 that my burger costs. If you wish to augment the earnings of poor persons by charitable means, by all means do so, but please refrain from confiscating the earnings of others in order to so do. > [...] 'Libertarians' can't seem to get the notion that the > cost of living today is ***MUCH*** higher than it was many years ago. My > mother worked as an accounting clerk for a furniture store for $.25/hr > when she was 18. Sorry, you're wrong. The actual dollar COL is obviously higher due to inflation, but if you adjust to constant dollars, practically everything takes less purchasing power as expressed by hours of labor. This has many dependent and independent causes, including technology-driven productivity increases, more efficient production of goods (making them cheaper in real terms), and others. If the tax burden had not increased dramatically in real terms over these years, the difference in standard of living would be stupendous. The work-week has shrunk to an all-time low, and leisure time and leisure-based expenditures are at an all-time high. > Now, 'libertarians' keep touting this B.S. concept of the "free market", > when people complain about excessive profits or unacceptable practices on > the part of owners/bosses. Yet, when the **LABOR FORCE** attempts to invoke > the "free market" principal to indicate that non-living wage jobs are not > acceptable, all of a sudden they are "lazy, unreasonable, greedy". Hmmm... Nope. There's nothing wrong with organizing labor, strikes, whatever, except when unions attempt to invoke the coercive power of the state to help achieve their demands. I refer to laws permitting closed-shop and agency-shop conditions, "anti-scab" laws, and strikes that are in violation of employment contracts that are occasionally protected. > Wrong! The situation is *NOT* related to the "state". It is **SOCIETY** > which has created over-population, automation, and the many other factors > which result in high unemployment. This being the case, ***SOCIETY*** > most certainly *DOES* owe a basic living to each member. After all, not > ***ONE*** of us had any choice in becoming a member of society. We didn't > choose to be born, or even when and where to be born. You've translated definitions here for your own benefit. If it is "society" that has caused all these horrible evils, and "society" that owes a basic living to each member, what embodiment of "society" is going to provide this basic living? The government, of course! -- THE STATE! > SUppose you do a bit of thinking, for just a moment. Let's not forget > that such a couple, working in a minimum wage environment, who had young > children, would have **MANY** expenses. Childcare for one. IN essence, > one member of the couple would be working full time to pay for the child > care so that the other member of the couple would be free to earn not > enough to live on. Hmmm. Minimum wage * 2 is about $13,000/yr. Assume 1 or 2 small children (having more than that is simply irresponsible, given their inability to provide for them). Let's deduct rent for a 2-br apartment in an inexpensive area ($400/mo.), food ($300/mo.), clothing and personal supplies ($150/mo.). Child care can be arranged cooperatively through non-governmental community, church, and neighborhood groups for nominal fees. That leaves about $3,000/yr. for utilities, transportation, non-employer-paid medical expenses, sales and local taxes, and all miscellaneous expenses and entertainment. There would be no federal/state income tax at this level. That's not a good situation, but none of the four of them should go to bed hungry or freeze in the winter. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/10/86)
-- > Mr. Keller, whether I believe a worker at McD's "deserves" a living > wage is irrelevant. I am willing to pay a certain amount for my > cheeseburger, and if it rises above a certain amount, I am going to > look elsewhere. I fail to see how I "owe" anything other than the > $1.69 that my burger costs. If you wish to augment the earnings of > poor persons by charitable means, by all means do so, but please > refrain from confiscating the earnings of others in order to so do... > > Michael C. Berch Ahh!!! You've gotten to the heart of the matter. The question is, "Do you have obligations to people you don't even know?" and if so, "Is it a proper function of society to deal with those obligations?" By most ethical philosophies, the answers "no" and "no"--which I suspect most libertarians would give--are repugnant. The proper argument against such libertarianism is not against its logic, which is sound, but against its morals, which are bankrupt. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Sep 86 [24 Fructidor An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***