Oh come now. Money is fungible. You can buy what you need with it without having to make tricky determinations. It's not hard to set amounts of money that are required to live a decent life. That's what our inadequate attempt a poverty line is supposed to do. So, what "wage" (an expression I avoided, I disapprove of wage labor)? Well, an hourly amount that at a reasonable working week, say four days a week, six hours a day, would be more than poverty, set at a reasonable figure, say equivalent to $35,000 a year for a family offour in the US. That would be tight, but as a bottom, it would probably be OK. Direct grant, same per capita. What means? Well, we could get into the market socialist debate gain, but I'd rather not. Say that by one of various means it has at its disposal, the govt ensures the gcreation of jobs that give people who can work the rumuneration indicated, and pays money directly to the rest via transfer payments.
>But I still can't figure out why its sensible to oppose social rights in
>the
>form of rights to food, shelter, health ... all the usual suspects already
>contained in various declarations of this or that.
Because they're idle and silly. Health is different: the govt can provide taht directly. But food and shelter should be provided for by giving people the financial means to attain them.
>
>As for your claim on lobster tails, well goodness knows laborers in
>early New England society were fed largely lobster. Had to crack
>'em open themselves, though.
>
So, where's mine? I'll crack 'em if you give 'em to me.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com