Quote:
Originally Posted by Inso0
I'm sorry, I just don't have the time today to go full out on the back and forth for the wage issue, but the poor and unskilled people of Seattle aren't having as much fun as you'd think given the new minimum wage standard.
This is a hilarious post (ignoring for the moment what others have said about its peer review status) from someone who not long ago was furious that we supposedly refused to consider the ability of real human beings to change their situation. Come on, Inso0, Seattle has (according to
your link) MORE high-paying jobs now! Why aren't these low-wage workers grabbing their bootstraps and taking them? That's how it works, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inso0
Well, I think you're the one voting for people who all but guarantee that poor people never escape their current situation. Giving them enough to survive, but predicating that continued support on them NOT improving their situation seems a little disingenuous at best.
I agree that wherever there are incentives in place such that not working is better for your situation than working (though I don't trust you in the slightest to have any clue how prevalent that sort of thing really is), that's not good and that's not how welfare should work.
But the difference between mismatched-incentive welfare vs. strong welfare that also encourages work is approximately 1% as large as the difference between having welfare and throwing people to the ****ing wolves if things don't work out for them, which is what you vote for. So again, **** you and your bootstraps rhetoric.