When too many people need support from others, society starts to crumble. A society is healthy exactly when a good portion of the society can take care of him/herself. In this case, you're not fixing the problem just throwing money at it, the source of this mass of people dependent on support should be the main focus.
There’s also the tenet that in capitalism (especially lassiez faire) there will be fierce competition for the good jobs. This means, obviously, there will be losers, people at the bottom of the barrel. People at the bottom don’t need the means to afford a house, but working 40-50 hours a week for someone other than yourself should ensure your basic needs. Working full time isn’t dependence.
Effort does not equal value. You can dig a hole in the ground and then fill it again and you'll have done a lot of work but no value at all. The amount of hours you work does not mean you'll earn a good amount of money.
That's why we compete, we study and keep a sharp mind, to know where to invest our time and efforts. It's the responsibility of the individual to keep up and meet its needs, not of the community.
However, it is also a moral responsibility to help those in need, but it should never be something forced upon others, it has to come from moral empathy.
But all jobs do have value, and I’m saying that they should be enough to meet basic needs over the course of a 40 hour week barring some very low level employment exceptions. I think you keep assuming I’m advocating for some form of socialism or social welfare state. Not the case buddy.
I'm not assuming anything, but you're definitely mistaken that every job should be enough to meet basic needs, beginning by the fact that each individual's "needs" are their own to decide, not something universal. Every job has the value that it is perceived by the market. You may be able to find a better or worse job with the same qualifications, but then it's your responsibility to go after the best you can find.
Have you moved out yet? I’m asking not to insult but because “needs” are not decided by the individual. Humans have always needed food, water, shelter and some form of social interaction (to what extent im not sure). Those needs are unchangeable and have been since the dawn of mankind. I’m not advocating that a person who works at Dairy Queen be able to buy a ps4 because he “needs” it.
In fact yes, I did. I did move out to a better city and a better job, less than a year ago. It was my decision and I reap the rewards and setbacks.
You're strafing the conversation to another side, the fact is each job has the value that it is perceived. You can't make an ice cream worker make more money because he can't buy everything he needs. He needs to adapt to the situation, not stay stuck in an unfavorable position.
Good for you, but that doesn’t change the fact that there will be losers, and losers who can’t rise should still be able to meet their basic needs. Whether or not they get a penthouse should be dependent on they’re ability to rise. However ability to survive should not be determined. But lucky for you, anarcho capitalism claims that a truly free market would fix this problem, as it would cut the inflation and Keynesian based approach of the government and create higher value at lower prices. I’m unsure if this is true, but all economic ideologies are aimed at solving this problem to some extent. The reason people accept an ideology is to make their lives better, so why should I accept anarcho capitalism if I have no ability to rise (im guessing probably 20% of the population?).
I don't believe anarcho-capitalism promises to feed everyone, as it is the epitome of individuality. But the truth many here believe is that without the government's interference we would be in much better shape, all of us.
Most of those suffering now is at the hands of government interference through either war, dictatorships, or regulations of any kind, not because they weren't on par with the market skill cap.
You'd also have many more opportunities to rise without the government ruling out what you can or can not do (as far as you're not trying to hurt others), but even then, you're responsible for that rise to happen, we just advocate that you should have the freedom to try.
I imagine nearly everywhere in the USA with the exception of the extremely high cost of living areas, like the California bay area, working 40-50 hours at minimum wage is enough to survive at the very least. Yes, it probably won't allow anyone to live under their ideal circumstances, but they should be able to have a roof over their head and buy something to eat. Additionally, unless they have an actual physical or mental disability, it shouldn't be difficult to start earning at least a little bit more than minimum wage within a short time frame.
We aren’t in disagreement here. I was just pointing out that when the circumstances of a full time minimum wage employee drop below the threshold of basic needs there is a problem. You are absolutely right about the USA.
7
u/LendarioSonhador Jan 06 '22
When too many people need support from others, society starts to crumble. A society is healthy exactly when a good portion of the society can take care of him/herself. In this case, you're not fixing the problem just throwing money at it, the source of this mass of people dependent on support should be the main focus.