That's a misleading way to put things. It also ignores the moral component that America implicitly ignores via policy.

It also ignores that way more people are going to end up on the dole anyway and for a multitude of reasons whether you like it or not.

Not if you get rid of the dole. Then no one will be on it.

Lol

What exactly do you mean by "get rid of the dole"? You're being vague, and as understood, you're still being disingenuous and still ignoring the moral aspect.

I'm not sure how to phrase this any simpler. By "get rid of the dole" I mean the dole should not be there any more. Instead of having a dole, we should not have a dole.

What specifically are you talking about? You aren't making any sense if you aren't willing to elaborate.

Eliminating the dole (welfare).

If you eliminate welfare as vaguely as you put it, then people literally die and you create more problems than you solve. It would be remarkably stupid to do and morally reprehensible as well.

Even if you want to go full Ayn Rand and lassez faire on it it's hella stupid. Power is nothing without control.

And stop being a deliberately obtuse troll...

He doesn't care what happens to poor people. He doesn't think there should be any safety nets. It's old people's fault if they didn't make enough money to retire. It's young people's fault if they can't find enough jobs to afford rent. He epitomizes the "****-you I got mine" GOP.

How would they die? Starvation?

If you really want to eliminate poverty, what you need is laissez-faire, not welfare. I champion poor people, which is why I support eliminating the minimum wage, so that no one will be priced out of the labour market.

70,000 people died in the 2003 heatwave in Europe, how many of them do think were wealthy? Just because you lack imagination doesn't mean people don't die due to poverty.

So how would the people literally die if there was no welfare? Starvation? Malnutrition? What's the mechanism.

LMAO. What happens when there aren't jobs for all the people? What happens to old people when they are too old for the workforce? Again, you don't give a **** about poor people.

Careful, you almost sound like you give a ****... Oh wait, you don't, what is the point you are trying to make? Who should homeless people get food and medicine from without welfare?

There is not a finite supply of jobs. Full employment is possible.
No, I do give a **** about poor people, I just also have an understanding of economics and what will actually help them and what will hurt them.

Eliminating welfare would not lead to people dying.

So what? What are these jobs and what are they going to be in 20 years? Factory owners cruising by the retirement home picking 5 of the spry ones to feed the robots? Explain how the supply of jobs is going to expand to meet the demand of society when there are half as many service jobs, or manufacturing jobs, or white collar jobs.

LOL, free markets consider labor a cost to be minimized not something to be preserved.

Why?

Today there are politicians being harassed in restaurants. Down the road ideologues are going to be chased down the streets by people wielding hatchets.

Try this book:



It was awarded the Financial Times business book of the year, 2015, and skewers the economists hard.

Technology is forcing productivity up and wages down, not the financial industry. Although capital does fuel that productivity (technological) growth.

They can always eat cake.

There is no sign of wages being "forced down " by technology, actually quite the opposite.

What technology does to labor is to eliminate the need for many low-skilled workers, which is a completly different thing that saying it "forces wages down".

The only thing "forcing wages down" is Capitals desire to have more money. Revenue and profits have been steadily increasing while wages have been rather flat over the same period.

If you check gross wages including everything they aren't as flat as they appear.

Also typically the game is deflating the 2 indexes with 2 different inflation rates as to magnify the gap.

In a recent New York Times article, Eduardo Porter suggests that this gap has been growing for decades, claims it can be found in many other countries, and conjectures that automation that displaces middle-skilled jobs and "a harsh new global economy" may be responsible. But when the numbers are measured more comprehensively—when wages are broadly defined as compensation to include benefits, comparable price indexes are used to calculate differences in wage and output growth in constant dollars, and the output is measured net of depreciation—the puzzle of lagging wages disappears, at least for 1970–2000. While prior to 2000 blue-collar workers fared especially poorly, constant dollar labor compensation for all workers actually kept pace with output. When appropriately measured, from 1970 to 2000, and perhaps to as late as 2008, the growth in overall worker compensation was precisely as rapid as the growth in average labor productivity would imply.

https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-econ...r-productivity