It's a known fact that paying employees a decent living wage increases moral, efficiency and ensures a more stable work force.
Would you share how this fact was established? I won't deny the rationalization. But, how was it "factualized"?
Anyway, I always thought "pay for performance" was more important than an entitlement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for compensation in return for work rendered. But, I think there are only a few humans that actively insist on paying more or top premium for any given item, product, or service of equivalent value. Otherwise, it is boiled down to what the market will bear, or the en masse value of whatever is being encountered in the exchange.
If you seek someone to mow your lawn, do you seek out the service or individual that demands the most money?
If you are paying someone else to stand at station and flip burgers, will they then flip them them faster than the customer demand mandates? How does it help the worker if the wage rises to the point where a robot can do the same function more consistently for less cost?
Will they really feel better about their employment if government steps in and forces the employer to pay them more money for doing the same (or even less) as they did before for the exact same job?
I remember getting an "allowance" in childhood. When I did more chores, my allowance increased. Is this now classified as parental cruelty in this modern age? Are chores and responsibility no longer taught before age 18? Is responsibility now issued by the government upon reaching age 18 without any prior training?
Will people take advantage of others? Yes. Is it human nature to do so? Yes, it has been going on throughout the existence of Homo Sapiens (as well as other species).
I dare say there is NO government that will ever treat all individuals fairly, (aside from pretense). And, as long as the groups of people remain small enough, not even groups of people as a whole will be treated fairly. As a group becomes larger, then factions within those groups will be treated differently within. Some may even get elected and become entitled to special privileges, simply because they are valued more than others (by many, or by some others who have themselves become entitled). Still others will resent all of this.
There are still others (individuals AND groups) that will dispute your basic rights (rights that are non-existent in the cosmos, btw), even your "right" to live, which in itself, is a human self glorifying construct.
Why starve the poor and dilute our fuels?
Because some of our species were enabled to control or seize resources. And, they did so "fairly" within the rules of society. We are going to need a genetic mutation applied to the species to effect a root change of behavior. We aren't presently equipped to deal with "fair", particularly when competing for resources, the root basis for all strife, conflict, and wars.
