Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
14. That's a false choice. Giving them no job or giving them a shitty job.
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:39 PM
Mar 2014

The third and moral choice is giving them a job that pays well with benefits and that doesn't kill them physically.

Your wording of "taxes that will go to fund unemployment benefit if they choose not to work" speaks volumes and says you think anyone who is unemployed "chooses" not to work. So they "choose" to get unemployment or food stamps. In some circles people who feel that way call the unfortunate people who find themselves unemployed "takers".

The real "takers" are the ones who refuse to pay a living wage even when they themselves make multi-millions per year.

Also what you speak of in your last statement is the legal obligation. That is no where near the moral obligation. That's why many people are trying to pass a minimum wage law. Because it's the moral thing to do.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»“No business which depend...»Reply #14