Another important example of the use of emotionally manipulative naming is the term ‘living wage’ which a significant amount of people on the left have been advocating for.
A living wage is used to refer to income that's enough to care for a family of four. This definition assumes that most people earning minimum wage have a family of four dependent on them which is just not true. The available data and common sense have shown that most people earning minimum wage are young people who are just starting their life and career and do not usually have anyone dependent on the, only about 20% percent of minimum wage workers have another dependent person.
The biggest problem with this fallacious but seductive policy is not the fact that it is based on a lie or that the advocates do not care to even look at the facts but the biggest problem is its economic consequences. What are these consequences?
Unemployment: Most businesses are not as profitable as the likes of Apple and Google. When the price of labor is artificially increased by the government to a value significantly higher than what it would have been if it was decided by market dynamics it will lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, The business will have to either raise prices, reduce quality or reduce employment, either way, the extra cost has to be paid somehow. Since raising prices or reducing quality isn’t always an option because of competition most businesses will have to reduce employment and staff strength while overworking those who are available.
Data from places where living wage laws have been enacted has shown repeatedly that the level of unemployment has risen significantly, disproportionately affecting people who are young, inexperienced, lower-skilled, and commonly from minority groups.
The activist and advocate class while trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist (minimum wage workers feeding a family of four) ended up creating bigger problems for the people they thought there were advocating for.
Economics is very simple, politics just complicates it.
Seeing that most people do not think Andrew Tate should be taken off social media, I'd like to know exactly where y'all draw the line on free speech. Or there should be no line?
Andrew Tate has been removed from multiple social media platforms for "spreading hate"
this situation is one of those in which the line between free speech and speech that incites violence, hate, and maltreatment of certain groups is blurred what do you think?
The Economics and politics of Race, an international perspective (Thomas Sowell)
World on fire - Amy chua
Human accomplishments, the pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences 800bc - 1950 by Charles Murray
The bell-curve by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein
Depending on the time available to be set aside for reading I might also add
Late talking children - Thomas Sowell
The mystery of capital, why capitalism Triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else
