Equating it with a loaded phrase like "social engineering" is an attempt to thwart the necessity of having enough money to sustain you. I've been talking about basic rent and food.
So if you think that I'm using loaded language with Social Engineering, I'll abandon it.I do think it has merit though: LoveUniHateExams pointed to the United Kingdoms situation. If you look at the politics and economics of the UK in the 1970s and 80s it is a good example of social engineering by the left and the right, with its advantages and its foibles.
Ok let me put it another way: What is the real minimum wage? Zero. Irrespective of minimum wage laws. If you're not working you're earning the real minimum wage, which is nothing. Which is worse: Living out of your car or living out of a cardboard box?
That could be used to rationalize no minimum wage the result of which being that the unemployed may be employed while living out of his car (if any).
True. Its my concern as well. I have to point out though that our concern is actually not borne out by the facts.
From the text again: "Europe’s unemployment rates shot up when such government-mandated benefits to be paid for by employers grew sharply during the 1980s and 1990s. In Germany, such benefits accounted for half of the average labor cost per hour. By comparison, such benefits accounted for less than one-fourth the average labor costs per hour in Japan and the United States. Average hourly compensation of manufacturing employees in the European Union countries in general is higher than in the United States or Japan. So is unemployment."
So what does one want then? Low unemployment or a better quality of life for those employed?
It seems that you cannot have both, unless I am mistaken.