← Back to context

Comment by WalterBright

20 days ago

> Good

It's not better to have people have no jobs and require 100% assistance.

> subsidy

Regardless of how you define terms, you'll being paying much more to help them when they are jobless.

> become like China

China has a largely state run economy, with the resulting problems.

> It's not better to have people have no jobs and require 100% assistance

It is actually. Former employees are free to learn new skills or do charity instead of being busy surviving a game they can’t win.

You are also subsidising an economically wasteful activity that cannot cover its own true costs - if fast food joint can’t pay a wage, it does not cover the negative externalities from extra traffic on the road, carbon emissions and people getting fat.

Business will be forced to innovate and invest in automation