TreeLogic, What many of us have figured out that you apparently haven't is that our economic and political system is far from being a meritocracy. Some of us would like to improve the system, others have swallowed too much propaganda to be of any practical use in improving social justice.
Aaaaaand there it is.... "social justice". The question, Mr. Butler, is who is to take on the God-like role of deciding what everybody else deserves? You can talk about “social justice” all you want. But what leftism boils down to is letting politicians quietly take money from productive people to pay for goodies that they will flamboyantly hand out to others, creating generational dependency in order to buy votes to get reelected. That is not "social justice" or any other kind of justice.
No government of the left has done as much for the poor as capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income, the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk.
What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done, on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more jobs and wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they're concerned, wealth exists uhhhh,
somehow, and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it. Zuckerberg paid nearly 3 BILLION in state and fed taxes the last two years. He ALONE accounted for 4 percent of California's income tax revenue last year. But that's not enough. It never is and it never will be for champions of "social justice" and redistribution. Because things won't be "just" until everyone is equal. Equally poor.
Luck may well have played a role in enabling Zuckerberg to achieve what he did. Others might have been able to do the same if they had been raised by better parents, taught in better schools or chanced upon someone who pointed them in the right direction. But you are not going to change that by confiscating the fruits of productivity. All you are going to do is destroy that productivity and undermine the virtues and attitudes that create prosperity and make a free society possible.
As for the article and minimum wage: no matter what arbitrary figure economically illiterate politicians settle on, the actual minimum wage will always be zero dollars. That's because making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker will remain unemployed. Making $0.00 per year. "Yay for Progressive minimum wages!" Question: Why $15 an hour? Why are these politicians in Seattle so cheap? Why not $25? Or $50? Hell, why not $150 an hour? What, because THAT would be crazy? Total political jackassery. They must WANT to pay $9.95 for a burger. Let em. BTW, Seattle is pushing back. They have 20,000 signatures (4,000 more than required) to get the repeal of that ordinance on the ballot.
Mac- I think the answer to your question is that those on my side simply believe that productive people generating jobs is a better way to help the poor than throwing more money down a government rat hole. I don't hate poor people! (Hell, I am one!) I love them and believe in their potential. But to realize that potential they should have to work, right? Not just be given subsistence level entitlements. I just know I never got a job from someone who had less money than me.
For the record this is not personal. I have had enough interaction with Mac and TH to feel confident saying they have honorable intentions and are good guys. Sometimes its hard to "argue" online without it seeming more harsh than it is. I had included Glenn in the previous sentence until I read his last post about Treelogic. Childish and unnecessarily personal. But then, maybe I'm not smart enough to sit at the adult table either.
