What did anything of anything I said have anything to do with public policy? I merely explained what will happen when minimum wage and welfare is enforced. Nowhere did I say 'do not use minimum wage' and 'welfare and negative income tax' should be avoided. I only said it was destructive and then proceeded to explain why.

Have you perhaps used a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. (that I'm a libertarian) and argued against it instead of the substance of the post itself?

The cited document where minimum wage did not increase unemployment happened for only two reasons: because the minimum wage imposed by the government was below the market equilibrium of supply and demand, or because people simply decided that working was preferable to collecting welfare subsidy, nothing more.

If you're ever willing to discuss this maturely we can continue from that point.

The rest of the post was completely uncalled for, and as a member of 'Staff' (you too, Pike, wtf. Publicly saying you are going to troll me is against the rules) I must publicly point out your incessant need to insult me and tie in 'libertarian' strawmen and the like. If you simply are unable to respond in a constructive manner the marketplace of ideas will and have made their decisions. They really have.

And no, I'm not butthurt - not even surprised.

Quote Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF View Post
Yeah but on the other hand, the evidence shows a guaranteed minimum income is a great idea which doesn't negatively impact the incentive to work, except in college students and single moms, both of whom have better things to be doing than slaving away for minimum wage anyway. In fact, rather than making everyone 'lazy' people ended up working harder because they were able to actually train for jobs they wanted rather than grinding away all their energy just to put food on the table. Turns out what motivates people isn't money, it's satisfaction.

The moral of the story is that welfare should be given to everyone.

The other moral of the story is that even if you adjudge welfare to be evil, letting people become homeless and starve to death is considerably moreso.

The third moral of the story is that paying for all the security, police, prisons, unwanted children, addiction clinics, and so forth which become required after the fact is a lot more expensive than preventing this stuff in the first place. If libertardians want to keep as much of their money as possible they should be avowed social democrats, because it's a lot cheaper in the long run and there will be more people who actually have money to pay for things.

The fourth moral of the story is that PG still has absolutely no idea how the world works and shouldn't be trusted to give advice on painting your nails, let alone economic policies.