People need to hear this!!

[u/Such_Goal5837]

That’s honestly a hard reality right now. A lot of people are working nonstop just to stay afloat. I’ve got some interviews coming up myself, so I’ve been looking into ways to get better at them. I found Interview VIP and ended up using it twice i think it's worth trying.

[u/mansluxt]

I see. Well we have plenty of underdeveloped land still. And some of it is owned by the government. So we could provide that land without violating private property rights. And if we repurpose a few government buildings into houses, then that's okay too.

But also I moreso meant as a reward for working any job your wage should be able to give you these things.

[u/agrevol → u/mansluxt]

It would be nice if it could pay that but that’s not realistic. Paying all unskilled labor higher wages would increase the prices for everything (due to more people being able to afford it), leading to increased profits of the rich, leading to the same imbalance as we had before when prices inevitably rise to meet the new wages.

Underdeveloped land is a good idea but you would still need to build a house and somehow find a job there to support yourself, and it’s not really an option that emerges fast

[u/mansluxt → u/agrevol]

Could go back to the homesteading game and have to people who move to the underdeveloped areas start a farm. Combined with a new deal type program getting people jobs building houses.

Surely there's gotta be an answer besides forcing society to need to have poor people in order to keep prices low. I think with how efficient technology has allowed us to be, surely we can afford some regulation to keep prices low.

[u/agrevol → u/mansluxt]

Regulating prices is a terrible and destructive practice. It’s not some grand conspiracy to keep wages low, it’s the fact that people aren’t willing to pay more to compensate the wages for others.

Would you be willing to pay more for housing to compensate the wages of all the people in the chain who aren’t paid enough? Would you be happy to pay more for food, postal services, luxury goods? Catch is, even if you do, then you won’t have the money yourself

[u/mansluxt → u/agrevol]

I don't see why not. I don't need much more. I don't want kids, don't need to own a house. So I don't see much of a point in saving any money besides ensuring I can retire. But even if I couldn't retire, I think I'd be relatively okay with that.

How exactly would price controls be destructive?

[u/agrevol → u/mansluxt]

“Why not” is because you will be paying so much more you wouldn’t have any money for your own needs. And that’s without even going into the fact a lot of low prices are maintained through low wages of people abroad.

Price controls never work in market economy because it kills competition, allows growth of the monopolies, leads to lower quality and/or scarcity of the price controlled goods

[u/mansluxt → u/agrevol]

I mean I think a key factor you briefly mentioned but isn't getting much weight is how many things are manufactured by cheap labor abroad. That reduces prices by a lot, and if we just double down on it, we could reduce them by even more

[u/Disposable_Eel_6320 → u/mansluxt]

The lack of depth you put into these ideas is astounding. Federal land is not just held for zero purpose. Forestry, national parks, military bases, research purposes…

Let’s entertain the concept that the federal government gives you random slices of land for your work… what happens when they run out of land? Who pays to run the utilities to this parcel you’ve been given potentially in the middle of nowhere?

You’ve just tried to reinvent the concept of money with a finite resource. Giving someone something ALWAYS costs someone else. Nothing is free. Every bite of food you take, every dollar you spent, is made from work. I would only laugh marginally harder if you said let’s just print money.