OCASM

Lyft and Uber work great for what they are: gig jobs. The problem is people trying to turn them into something completely different. If these companies don't offer the terms you want, maybe seek employment elsewhere?

Or you could could have such a business and allow people to decide whether they want to work there or not.

It's not only the prices but the specifics of what "livable" means. For some it just means the essentials, to others it includes luxuries.

The people taking those low-wage jobs clearly prefer the existence of those businesses over nothing.

Maybe you can help them by getting them food at lower prices. Just a thought.

If only there were less regulations, allowing the creation of more businesses which would compete for this man's labor, increasing the wages as a result.

The US used to have very little taxation. It worked fine then. Ever increasing government reach wasn't always the norm.

Sure, different countries have different living standards. That's the point. "Living wage" is an undefined, ever changing concept. Populist to the core.

Could be that I do want people to improve their lives and just happen to disagree with your methods?

No, disagreeing with your must mean I want people to stay in poverty forever...

Learn from immigrants: they earn their way to a better life by applying themselves and helping each other.

Demanding other people take care of you even against their will and using the power of the state to achieve so. How is that not slavery?

They don't need the handouts. They could for example live in communal spaces and share resources.

What exactly is "livable" anyways? Millions of people live every day with only a couple of dollars a day.

There would be no taxes, only voluntary cooperation.

Is starvation preferable to getting a low wage job?

You start somewhere. Minimum wage laws just reduce the amount of opportunities low skill workers can choose from.

Destroys small businesses and consolidates big corps as monopolies.

Adults will just buy them for the kids. I bet tons of stores will just ignore the law too.

Only the envious care. They try to justify it by conflating poverty with inequality.

The response to this from the western world has indeed been disgraceful. China's was too. They managed to contain due to their authoritarian policies but the real examples of good responses from asian nations are SK, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. They've managed to contain it much better than anyone else without the need of massive government overreach.

Well, lets not forget that this whole mess started in China. It was the chinese government which decided to hide information and pretend everything was under control while allowing it to spread all over the world.

How does the government acquire the money for that stimulus? By taking it from the companies through taxation. Government spending is always less efficient than by private entities.

The government would be creating a market distortion by not allowing companies to spend their money how they see fit and instead redistributing to another sector (the general public).

There would be no growth because the money the people would be spending is the same the government took from the companies in the first place. It's like taking the fat out of a man and feeding it back to him.

Saving allows the banks to lend the money to entrepreneurs who increase productive capacity and hence grow the economy.

Indeed, real investment requires market interest, something the government is pretty bad at discerning

Saving goes hand in hand with investment since by putting money in the bank it can be borrowed by entrepreneurs and they can hopefully do something productive with it. Merely spending it doesn't have that effect.

Inflation is their favorite tool to steal from the people. It's even illegal to purchase a high amount of US dollars now.

Inflation is not as bad in the US as it is in Argentina because the demand of US dollars is still high. When that changes you can say good bye to a nice, stable inflation rate.

Anything but cutting spending, huh?

Keynes's ideas also fail all over the globe. Saving and investing is what grows an economy.

What's irrational about the reaction to the virus?

Maybe they want to avoid the risk of being labelled predators.

You're not taking away anything because they never had them in the first place.

It is worse because you'd be taking away opportunities from some to give to others against their will. It's cheating.

Capitalism is about private property and freedom. If parents want to provide generously to their children that's perfectly fine.

Equality of opportunity is equally as bad as equality of results. It denies people the ability to reach as high as they can and forcibly brings them down.