Friendly reminder, that by not making corporations pay a living

You're on the right track with your thinking, but you've got it backwards.

>>128080747
>If corporations were forced to pay an actual living wage, THERE WOULD BE NO WELFARE NEEDED.

If there was no welfare state, then people would not accept jobs that paid less than a living wage.

>>128080747
Continue

>>128081674
I'm going to jump on to this train of thought to also add that anyone who thinks giving money to people with 80 IQ or less will solve their problems probably already has 80 IQ.

The obsession with money is a problem of both capitalists and socialists, but the socialists are actually evil about in denying that such hierarchies will always exist and just want to put boots on your throats.

Capitalists just want to buy more pairs of boots.

jesus fuck i hope this is bait.

you think people with jobs apply for welfare?

>>128082520
If they're working full time and can't feed their kids. It would be nice if their employer could pay them a living wage instead of making the taxpayers pick up the tab.

Anarchy is the only way. It's the only true free market. The weak and stupid will die, the gene pool will improve, and humanity will flourish and evolve. Only if they have the courage to sacrifice personal safety for the destruction of the Hierarchy, that is...

>>128081828
He can't because that's as far as the thought goes.

>>128083313
Being in a hierarchy is natural.

What the fuck ever gave you the idea that human beings are the only species on the planet that are not naturally inclined to a hierarchy?

Minimum wage is a living wage. That's literally the definition. It is a wage determined by local and federal governments based on the living expenses of the area.

It is not meant to support a family. Nor should a business with a high turnover rate be required to support a family.

If welfare was abolished, perhaps people wouldn't be so reckless and make poor life decisions because they know there would be nothing to take care of them.

>>128083822
>people wouldn't be so reckless and make poor life decisions because they know there would be nothing to take care of them.
>nothing to take care of them.

They wouldn't just die or disappear. There would be a huge increase in the homeless population.

Let's raise the min wage, but I know as a business owner myself that shit can't work for small businesses that are just scrapping by as it is. Walmart will be fine. Small businesses will suffer or starve out. It's hard enough as it is..

>>128083686

Natural inclinations are no longer useful at this stage of evolution. In fact, they are counterproductive.

>>128084882
Yes, I should have said that I meant in the future. As for the current welfare recipients, well, they would just have to get jobs. Minimum wage is enough to support yourself and perhaps one child if you live meagerly. The problem is low IQ combined with poor education mean people don't understand how to do that.

I think much of the problem could be solved by teaching basic financial lessons in high school, such as budgeting and how loans work.

>>128085606
If you think you exist outside of the natural universe, rather than as a part of it, then you need a reality check

>>128085947
If you believe in determinism, you have no soul.

>>128080747

lol this fag saved my picture. Well, its kinda true.

>>128080747
Or we could harvest all the welfare faggots for organs.

File: Not an argument.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

>>128086125
>you have no soul

>>128080747
Let's cut the welfare. And see whether people live or not working for big corporations.

If we just elimated all welfare programs, no welfare would be needed.

>>128083116
If their skill set is so low that they cannot feed their children, than they should not have children.