[Consultant32452]

>Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders

I'm curious what you believe would happen if we could magically remove all welfare programs. Do you believe those employers would be forced to raise wages? Or do you believe the lives of the poor would just be that much worse?

[lovich]

I think everyone would be worse off unless companies are forced to pay. I am pro UBI, I just thought the guy was being crazy by hoping for something to never happen in his lifetime that is happening every day and has been for a while

[Consultant32452]

>I think everyone would be worse off

I agree with this, which is why I disagree with your first sentiment:

>Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders

Since we agree that employers would not pay more if welfare is removed, then the value of those welfare programs must not be subsidizing shareholders.

[lovich]

I don't agree with that conclusion at all. If they didn't subsidize those employees through welfare people would stop working there, either through leaving to other jobs or just dieing. At some point people have to eat and have a place to sleep.

Society is providing a workforce to employers at a wage that is not sustainable without the welfare

[Consultant32452]

>If they didn't subsidize those employees through welfare people would stop working there, either through leaving to other jobs or just dieing.

So then you believe if we eliminate welfare that employers would be forced to raise wages, because employees would be unable or unwilling to work there for their current wages. That is the opposite of what you said before.

[lovich]

I am struggling to understand your train of thought.

I claimed that there is redistributing wealth from society to business owners via welfare for low paid employees. In my understanding of the world the wages that are necessary to sustain the work force are $X and employers are paying $X -$Y. That $Y is the amount covered by welfare and what I am considering to be the wealth redistribution from society to the business owners.

That seems consistent with the idea that if the $Y subsidy is removed, then employers would be forced to raise wages or lose their workforce.

For example: if I have a nice car that my parents cover the lease and they stop covering the lease,I will either have to increase the amount of money I spend on the lease or lose the car. Just because I can respond to the change doesnt mean wealth wasn't being redistributed from my parents to me

Edit: it also appears that we are triggering hn's anti flame war measures as I have to wait some time to reply to you now. This has been a unheated discussion to me, but there will be delays in any responses now

[Consultant32452]

In your first response you seemed to be indicating that the lives of the poor would just be worse if we removed welfare. If that were the case, then welfare is not subsidizing shareholders.

Now you're saying that if welfare is removed employers would be forced to raise wages or go out of business. If that's true, then yes, welfare is subsidizing shareholders. Given that belief, do you support removing welfare programs so that we (society) can stop subsidizing shareholders?