Firstly, I read everything you sent and respect the fact that you make an argument instead of throwing snark and running away. So while this is my final rebuttal on this thread, I'm looking fwd to the next topic we discuss.

I'm seeing three issues: 1. H/G Equality 2. Recent Income Inequality 3. Minimum Wage

1. H/G Equality No argument that people share more equitably in small groups. You claim kinship, I claim accountability and transparency. Doesn't matter for argument that people are socially wired to share.

SC 1 GC 0

1. Recent Income Inequality You ducked this issue of contractors and US health care. Clearly, capitalism concentrates wealth leading to inequality which leads to exploitation. You basically said to start your own business, which is laughable when we see how Walmart both crushes local small business and forces their own suppliers to offshore business. Concentrating wealth and power kills innovation, diversity and equitable, sustainable opportunities for people.

"Most of Walmart’s 1.5 million US employees don’t earn anything close to that, of course, and its stores are famous for their deleterious impact on small towns. One study shows the opening of a big-box retailer results in as many as 14 local stores closing, while another argues towns in Iowa lost 47% of their retail sales after a decade of a Wal-Mart opening. The harm to small towns was multiplied when Walmart closed 154 stores, leaving some towns without any options for groceries"

https://qz.com/999040/walmart-is-famous-for-destroying-small-towns-heres-the-amazing-one-it-built/

I prefer how graphs really illustrate the impacts of inequality over the last 50 years. We are on a runaway gravy train for big business and the 1% as shown below.

"The median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000"

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

SC 2 GC 0

Minimum Wage Keep in mind that data produced by Daniel Aaronson, Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, may be biased towards elites, especially considering his conclusions regarding offshoring and automation in the face of raising the minimum wage:

"The key mechanism behind the model – that more labour-intensive establishments are replaced by more capital-intensive ones – is supported by evidence"

But this is more clearly enunciated here:

"I take a radical position: I not only think the minimum wage should not be raised, but it should be abolished and Congress should use its power under the commerce clause to prohibit state and local minimum wage laws...society is better off having lots and lots of entry-level jobs" Thomas A. Firey, Cato Institute

These arguments from diehard neocons basically assume that financial opportunity >> people's welfare and do not consider social equality in any way shape or form. They want more inequality and a more ruthless system than we already have. Ugh

This discussion started with humans being equitable by nature and here we are discussing the lowest amount companies can legally pay a person. I disagree with the values expressed here and will leave you with a more balanced source that reflects the values we were originally discussing:

"A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly remuneration employers legally have to pay to workers. The main purpose of the legislation is to ensure employers, who usually have higher bargaining power in the labor market, do not exploit their workers and that workers earn a fair living wage."

"Distributive justice is achieved when there is fair distribution of benefits and burdens by the state, so that everyone receives their due."

https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/the-ethics-of-minimum-wage-legislation/

SC 3 GC 0

In the future I'll play nice if you play nice. Respectfully.