[quote name='dopa345']How about this:
Conservative view: Everyone deserves to achieve the level of economic success as far as their talent and industry allows. The government's role should be limited as a "referee". Everyone deserves to play in the game by the same set of rules, but how many points you score is up to you. The government should step in only if you play dirty or foul other players.
Liberal view: Everyone deserves a minimum standard of economic success regardless of talent or industry. Thus the government's role is like being a "nanny". Government attention should be focused on those who cannot achieve this standard on their own and it's acceptable to redistribute economic resources from those that exceed this minimum standard to those who cannot.[/QUOTE]
On one hand I agree, but on another I disagree.
First is the deliberate selection of the word "nanny" and all the implications it has (let alone the root in the "nanny state" pejorative).
Second, part of me agrees on the standard of economic success. A person who works 40 a week should be able to afford a home (not just to rent), and auto, and food. So, at $10 an hour (notice I'm not going w/ minimum), you're talking $20K per, pre-tax. Based on the "1/3 of income as rent/mortgage", and you're at $6600, or $550 a month. I don't know many folks who can get a mortgage payment that low. It's possible, I suppose - just not likely. Not as a result of the boom in housing prices due to the speculative market that just fell on its ass. Let's give them a nice low-priced vehicle, too. $200 a month (lease at that price, probably). We've spent another $4800. The remaining $8,600 can go to groceries (let's take away $2600 on the laughable notion that $50/week is enough).
So we've covered rent, food, and car. Not utilities, phone, water, though. No taxes. No savings. No gar for said car. The tax will be the kicker. You can't afford children on this salary. Or car insurance. Definitely not health insurance. And if you don't get health, or break the law by having an auto but no insurance, then *maybe* you can put something into savings.
So it may be possible to get by on $10 per hour, but as you can see, the self-discipline necessary to do so is massive on all fronts. Anyone earning less than that, or working fewer than 40 per week (e.g., Wal-Mart's "32 hour work week") In my liberal opinion, anyone putting in 40 and contributing to American society in that way, no matter how piddly or seemingly irrelevant the job, deserves a chance at that kind of life.
Whether they put the money in that direction or spend it all on Krispy Kreme donuts and foam peanuts is not my concern (directly, at any rate). The prospect of being a homeowner and a reliable auto should be something every full-time working American can aspire to doing successfully. And if they don't want/need an auto, bully for them: they have more money now.
Of course, as a liberal I would be remiss to point out that workplace discrimination must be annihilated everywhere it lurks, because it is an enemy of meritocracy.
off on that one. The last thing this discussion (and country) needs is more bullshit involving blowing people's opinions into factions to better quantify (and attack) them.
