You're viewing part of a thread.
Reply to "just my opinion", Part 1 of 2:
I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.
I thought the Capitalism vs Socialism subreddit was pretty great, though I didn't spend a ton of time there, and I was mostly a lurker. But on several occasions I was impressed by the level of discourse there.
Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.
if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies
Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural. In practice, though, there's not many of them. Usually they're owned by a municipality, such as water supply for urban folks who lack their own wells, and waste processing for the same folks who lack septic tanks. Physical constraints make competition difficult in these markets.
Most large corporations are groups that grow vastly larger than their natural size due to government assistance and encouragement.
A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses. Consider our founding culture in the Eighteenth Century; the big multinational companies were the Dutch East India Trading Co and the East India Co, both of which were state-chartered monopolies. By contrast, the nascent US flourished with only tiny businesses and family farms. That is our natural business culture, to which we should strive to return.
Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).
Apples and oranges.
- A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
- A company offers products and services for sale in a marketplace, which people are free to buy if they want, or not to buy if they don't want. A company may employ people in a voluntary arrangement where employees sell their labor to the company for a fair price, and are free to seek employment elsewhere for a better price if they so choose.
When you picture a company, think of a man with a fruit cart selling fresh fruit at a farmer's market — that's the quintessential company. His family are back home picking fruit on the family farm, while he heads to market to compete against the other vendors. Customers are free to compare which fruit vendor offers the freshest fruit, and buy a little, or a lot, or none at all.
The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor, who offers you a fresh apricot for 7¢, to a blood-thirsty dictator who proclaims "everyone must placate those afflicted with gender dysphoria, on penalty of death" is a strain of the imagination. A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.
You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.
True, but so? You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.
And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery.
It's fundamentally different. The lottery is pure chance, while building a business is a measure of one's intelligence and drive to succeed.
I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.
It's hardly a fantasy. It's the American way. And it's hardly "la la land". Have you never started your own business?
you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive.
What do you mean by "abusive"? Big bad boss man said you need to show up on time, or else you'll get fired? No jobs are abusive. They're voluntary agreements for the sale of one's labor. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?
It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.
Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.
I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.
Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural.
It's definitely hard, but not impossible.
A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses.
Historically that is not true. What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.
A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.
And armed forces aren't the only way authoritarians control the people, they also do so through law, which the corporations control.
The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor
I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations. Google, microsoft, amazon, meta, etc.
A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.
When the United Fruit Company toppled governments in latin america, they were in fact not practicioners of freedom. Companies are just as capable of subverting the will of the people and destroying freedoms as dictators.
You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.
You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.
Have you never started your own business?
I am already struggling to pay for rent, food, and utility bills, and soon my student debt will add to that. I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.
What do you mean by "abusive"?
I'm talking about violations of labor laws that go unpunished, workplace injuries, poverty wages, excessive hours, repetitive strain injury, wage theft.
https://www.greenamerica.org/choose-fair-labor/us-companies-exploiting-workers
https://apnews.com/article/how-companies-rip-off-poor-employees-6c5364b4f9c69d9bc1b0093519935a5a
https://hbr.org/2020/06/times-up-for-toxic-workplaces
Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.
It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.
Then it sounds like you're lucky.
I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.
That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?
What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.
Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples. I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.
Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.
Yeah no. Read the wiki on banana republics. From the intro:
[…] thus, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, […]
Their governments instigate and enable their problem.
I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations.
It seems we're in general agreement that small family owned businesses are far preferable to mega-corporations. (After all, we're both here in the Fediverse.)
Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.
You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.
Again, you focused on negativity to the exclusion of truth. The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us. The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.
A good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars … (I'm joking, but my above point is true.)
I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.
Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money, or perhaps just a few dollars. Going back to my fruit cart example, it doesn't cost any money to pick fruit and sell it. And there are a ton of sub-$100 sweaty-startup ideas out there. You may not have the time or the drive to start one, but you certainly have the money.
Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.
I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all. Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.
Then it sounds like you're lucky.
"Lucky" is not the right word. I didn't grow up here. I've lived in a bunch of places, from urban to suburban, and now rural. I moved here because I like the area and the people here. And there are plenty of local small businesses I support as much as I can.
That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?
I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.
Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples.
Hong Kong is an incredibly niche place. To point to that city state as a good example to extrapolate the effects of government policy is a bad idea/methodology.
I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.
I think you missed my point, I am not stating that all or even many corporations become monopolies without government assistance. Usually what happens is that a corporation gets so big that they gain so much control that they can alter government policy, and therefore they grow with government assistance that they themselves implemented. Most if not all monopolies follow this pattern. First the start small, then they get big, then they push out competition, then they buy out the politicians, then they set the laws that make them even bigger.
Their governments instigate and enable their problem.
Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.
Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.
The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.
The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us.
There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.
The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.
Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.
good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars
Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.
Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money
The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.
I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all.
If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point? Regardless, it's not just a feeling, because objectively, vertical mobility is not doing well in the united states. Horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.
"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.
I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable, though I agree it's a tangled mess. Yet if you'd find it prudent to quickly wind it down, I won't be offended.
Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.
Well then we're close to splitting hairs. My contention is governments should be too small to enable companies to grow huge. I get that we don't completely see eye-to-eye on this, but I'm not sure it's worth our bickering over the details.
The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.
I mentioned the importance of definitions recently. Among people who disagree over capitalism, I find we are often operating on different definitions. What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about freedom that inherently gives rise to mega-corporations. They didn't even exist until relatively modern times.
There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.
No kidding. When you hold a race, there's one winner. You might give out medals for second and third place, but most competitors are losers. And that's great. Everyone goes home and tries again tomorrow. In the end, some people are never able to win at all, due to lack of drive, technique, or what-have-you, and that's fine. Life isn't fair, and we wouldn't want it to be. All that matters is that everyone's able to compete, fair and square.
Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.
Okay, now I really wonder where you live. Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America I know and love.
Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.
Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.
The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.
No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.
If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point?
The point is always God. And God, incidentally, is the source of our freedom. People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God. That's hardly the fault of corporations (although you could make a good case that any corporation propagating secular culture is indirectly at fault.)
"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase. It wasn't long ago that many of us lived in single-room log cabins that we built ourselves, hauled our own water without plumbing, used outhouses, lacked electricity, had a horse and cart instead of a truck, and grew most of our own food. And we were happy. Because we had God, and in the end that's all we've ever needed. If you're defining a "livable wage" in terms of anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable.
I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable...
I am enjoying it too, and it's quite alright. I'm (so far) able to keep up.
Well then we're close to splitting hairs.
I'll move on then from this part.
What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about...
Even the term "free markets" is incredibly vague. And depending on what you count as "modern times", even capitalism itself hasn't existed until modern times. So it would kind of not make sense to expect to see mega corps in an economic system that doesn't permit the kind of corps we see today.
And I hate to repeat myself, but core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners. And therefore the freedom you speak of inherently gives rise to mega-corps. They buy each other up and kill off competitors until they become mega-corps.
Any given loser of a competition under capitalism may not immediately die, but each loss forces a company closer and closer to dying.
everyone's able to compete, fair and square.
We unfortunately don't have that though due to inheritance discrepancies, and the burden of entry that corporations put in place through their control of politicians, and through the inherent difficulty of starting a business in an economy as specialized as ours.
For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.
Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America...
I actually live on the East coast, in a mid to large sized city, I think mine is 3rd in pop for my state. And as for your second bit here, I haven't made anything up.
Majority of citizens living paycheck to paycheck
Housing is increasingly unaffordable with an 18% hike in prices I don't know about you, but my wage has never increased anywhere close to be able to match that. Grocery prices are no different
The retirement age is going up
Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.
Sorry, I am a very argumentative person if you couldn't tell already lol
No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.
This is another one of the issues that I wish I had more data on, but unfortunately do not. The closest I was able to find was this:
https://www.luisazhou.com/blog/startup-failure-statistics/
And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.
People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God.
So this is similar to the drug addiction/true christian inverse correlation that I've been talking about in one of the other threads. I know you don't quite agree with the freedom index I've been using, but freedom is not in any way correlated with christianity.
What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase
Sure, it's a subjective phrase, and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen
As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.
I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.
And we were happy. Because we had God...
I don't think that was the reason, I think the reason was because life was literally simpler and more connected to nature. Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.
anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable
I'm not saying a livable wage is one in which you will be able to afford anything fancy. It should be a basic wage, but enough so that you can have a family without worry
core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners.
This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.
For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.
Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg, who started a Google competitor in his basement with a $0 investment, which now earns $25 million annually.
And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.
It's true, but most successful entrepreneurs learn from previous failures, so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.
Sure, it's a subjective phrase ["livable wage"], and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen
I've occasionally thought it would be nice to have a website where anyone could post "bills" they wish were actual laws, and other users could vote on them. It'd be fun. Not that I really think we need any more laws. I just wonder what people would come up with.
As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.
You'd struggle to transform that into a legally reliable definition. Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line? Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?
I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.
I didn't miss it. I just skipped the reply. Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well. You can deny it all you'd like, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories. Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.
Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.
Jesus could.
This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.
This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.
Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg
An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.
so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.
Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.
I just wonder what people would come up with.
I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.
Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line?
None of that crap.
Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.
However much each of these end up costing, calculated yearly, added up, should be a reasonable start.
Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?
If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.
And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.
Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well.
I can't remember if I posted this link elsewhere, but I'll do it again just in case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
We are #27. We could be doing far better.
Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.
I don't hear about them because I don't really care for lottery winning stories, and avoid the news sources that show them. I want news with more substance than that.
Jesus could.
We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.
This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.
I'm not formally trained in economics or game theory, but this doesn't seem right to me. Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.
An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.
Again, entrepreneurs usually need to fail, and build upon those failures, before finding success. It's normal.
The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much. Anyone can start a Google competitor, but the kind of people who do are the same kind of people likely to want to attend MIT.
Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.
Almost everyone can, though not everyone wants to. It's stressful and time-consuming, though also rewarding in a variety of ways. Even if it fails.
I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.
Thanks! I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive. There'd be a ton of things like "Free ice cream for everyone!" As a serious policy proposal it would be objectionable, but as a playful idea it's fun to imagine. As for legalese and complications, you could make suggestions to improve someone else's idea.
Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.
What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare? Cosmetic surgeries for pets? It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.
If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.
You can make your own fertilizer with compost. You can haul your own water up from the stream. You can chop your own wood for heating. Property taxes are a racket. Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.
I love those videos too. I try not to spend much time on YouTube, but on occasion I can easily lose an hour or two to My Self Reliance.
But to your point about a "living wage", it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think what the upper bound of that range is.
And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.
True, but as I mentioned I think economic efficiency is overrated.
We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.
We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.
Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
Almost everyone can
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare?
Basic food, not caviar. Basic housing, not mcmansions. Utilities should include heating, cooling, water, electric, literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
You're splitting hairs at this point.
It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think
If housing in this country wasn't so fucked, it would probably be around $40-50k a year. Nobody is buying caviar and a bugatti with that budget.
We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
It's a matter of drive. Anyone can try to compete with Google. Someone must be adequately driven, and reasonably intelligent to succeed. But everyone who fails will gain the opportunities to build on those failures and start a more successful venture.
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think? We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth. People flock from around the world to live here, and they want to so badly that they're willing to become illegal just to live here. It's very rare that you can find a principle applicable to other countries which also happens to be applicable to the US. If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are. Some people like me will say it costs $0, while others may insist it's a minimum of $250k. This is complicated by the fact that the dollar is worth dramatically different values in different parts of the country, a fact often ignored. Generally speaking it's worth much less in urban areas.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage. The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, it's a free country, and so we're all allowed to negotiate our own terms of business. If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again. When you run a business, you have a certain budget to spend on compensation. Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day to hire them. That means you can pay them about $6 per hour maximum. Now some busybody steps in, and introduces an oppressive law that you have to pay more than $6. Well that sucks, doesn't it. That means you can't hire two people after all. You can still hire one person up to $12 per hour, but you'll have to overwork him to produce the results of two workers. Meanwhile somebody else will be jobless. Now let's say the busybody comes back and says $12 is still too low! Well fine, that means you can't hire anyone at all. So now we have two people out of work who would have had jobs. And it also means you'll need to find a robot that's cheaper than $100 per day, because if you can't then the busybody just drove you out of business.
The concept of minimum wage is un-American and downright evil.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
What system? We're all individuals.