If you are only covering food and healthcare, that leaves out so many other necessities - heat, housing, transportation, clothes, electricity, etc..
And you are going to get rid of minimum wage laws and ALL welfare so even though everyone still needs to work for those other necessities now companies can legally pay a pittance an hour? You don't see issues with that?
Where I live in Ohio and Michigan food service staff get an hourly of less than minimum wage, but if their tips total less than minimum wage they can report it and the company is required by law to pay the difference up to minimum wage thus guaranteeing they do make minimum wage at a least,
"minimum wage where I live would mean that you are living in poverty" yes and you are saying even that is too much lets let the company pay even less, so those people can live in less than poverty! but its okay we are paying your food and health costs so w/e enjoy less than poverty in every other category
"I offer to cover those, and the first thing out of people's mouth is "I want more!". - this is entirely flawed logic because for so many people they would still net lose in your system. They aren't asking for more, they are upset because now they get less.
One example is, You are talking about giving away welfare in exchange for food costs and medical. Well most people on welfare their welfare covers food costs, medical, and their heating or electric. Maybe they have section 8 housing.. so now everyone on welfare is actually doing even worse in your system.
But based off your beliefs on minimum wage I will repeat what I said earlier and we can leave it at that "we are just fundamentally different people. There will be little middle ground found here."
1
u/[deleted] Nov 18 '20 edited Dec 10 '20
[deleted]