[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?

[lovich]

You are making a connection I am not making. If welfare is removed you are assuming that people's lives would not be worse because _eventually_ companies would be forced to raise their wages. In the short, medium, and even long term if the companies we're done headed enough, people's lives would be worse off because they would lack the welfare _and_ employers would not have adapted wages to the new equilibrium.

As to what I support. I would be for a UBI system so that every company would no longer have to worry about supporting their employees basic needs. It would allow for better competition as employees would be in a better negotiating position since no one would need a particular job. It would be still be a wealth transfer but I think the improvements to economy would pay off and it would give every citizen a benefit directly by not making them tied to employment. Road repair from damage from trucks is another situation where it looks like a wealth transfer from society to businesses, but the payoff in terms of the improvements to citizens lives are worth it.

As it stands currently the benefits from this current setup only go to owners of companies with low paid employees and I don't believe that the benefit of lower prices on some goods outweighs the harm that is caused by increasing the inequality between business owners and employees without giving employees a way to improve their lives

[Consultant32452]

>If welfare is removed you are assuming that people's lives would not be worse because _eventually_ companies would be forced to raise their wages. In the short, medium, and even long term if the companies we're done headed enough, people's lives would be worse off because they would lack the welfare _and_ employers would not have adapted wages to the new equilibrium.

This concern could be alleviated by phasing out welfare over time rather than instantaneously removing it. I feel like you dodged the spirit of the question, so I'll ask it again. Ignoring UBI as a possibility, given the world as you understand it today where welfare is a subsidy for shareholders, do you support removing welfare so that we can stop subsidizing the wealthy?

UBI vs welfare doesn't really change the situation here. UBI may be more economically efficient than our current form of welfare, but that's a different discussion altogether. I'm only interested in the question of whether you really believe that welfare as it stands today is a subsidy for shareholders. Because if you believe that, then it seems the rational proposal would be to get rid of welfare.

[lovich]

Gotcha now

Short answer: I do not support removing welfare even though it subsidizes the wealthy

Long answer: I don't believe that wealth redistribution is a bad thing inherently and I would not be for removing welfare to replace it with nothing. I think UBI is economically and socially Superior to our current welfare system but our current welfare system is better than nothing.

The cons to our current system are that it's increasing inequality and benefiting a fee people massively at the expense of society, but I'd rather shoulder that expense than let people die by exposing them to unfiltered capitalism which I believe would lead many people to bring entirely jobless and destitute

[Consultant32452]

>but our current welfare system is better than nothing.

I feel like you're trying to have it both ways. On one hand you say that our current welfare system simply subsidizes shareholders. You seem to believe that if we phased out welfare that the poor would wind up in the same place they are today because they would demand higher wages. In other words, it provides no benefit to the well-being of the poor. And yet you say it's better than nothing. How can that be?

[lovich]

You're making jumps again. Shareholders and the poor are two subsets of society. Its possible for wealth to be moved from society as a whole to the shareholders and still benefit the poor, without taking money from the poor to do so.

I don't think the poor as a group would end up in the same place. I believe the wages would end up rising but less people overall would be employed. If you remove welfare then the people who end up without a job are going to be without anything and homeless/starve to death. The amount of time it would take for the new equilibrium to be met would also cause a lot of pain and suffering in the interim.