Again, I fundamentally agree with you. BUT - I can see that argument that the government is legislating on behalf of a certain class, and forcing wealth transfer from one group to another. The difference being that the government doesn't play the middleman.GreenGoo wrote:Regulations are not cash give aways using tax payer money. That's like saying seat belt laws are a form of social assistance. Car makers are required by law to spend money on seat belts. Or having a restriction of hours worked per week is a form of social assistance. i.e. in the US it is illegal to work your employees to death. Other countries? Depends on the country. Is that a form of social assistance?Binktopia wrote:Interesting read people!
Greengoo, can you expand on why you believe a government agency coming in and telling a business how much to pay workers is not a form of social assistance? I am not saying it's bad, or good; I just want understand your position better. Can you give me a definition (not a personal definition but a real definition) of social assistance?
Social assistance requires tax money to actually assist, socially. Typically by literally giving tax revenue to people in the form of cash, food stamps, rental subsidies.
For minimum wage to be a form of social assistance, the government would have to actually pay part of the salary. Requiring businesses to behave responsibly (like, don't maximize your profit by dumping toxic shit into the water table, don't maximize your profit by using tainted food, don't maximize your profit by paying your employees less than a certain wage) is not a form of social assistance. It's a form of regulation that require businesses to operate responsibly.
Minimum wage isn't social assistance, it's a (regulated) cost of doing business.
A more Tea-partyish person than myself might make the argument that additional payroll taxes will be generated, but I think that's a step (or three) to far down the rabbit hole