[quote=@SleepingSilence] See own previous statement for example? Seriously though, School is one of those things.[/quote] Healthcare is debatable, but the belief that public education is a bad thing is ridiculous. [quote] I've honestly never heard anyone claim that social security was loved.[/quote] Aight, let's just take away people's social security, then. No one will complain. [quote] How would you go about implementing 'free' healthcare and higher education? Especially, without reshaping how many systems in America currently work entirely? [/quote] Are you sitting down right now? Tax the rich. That's one thing we can do, anyway. But I also think we can cut back on wasteful spending in general. We wasted trillions of dollars in useless wars overseas. That's money that could have been used for the purpose of implementing these social programs. The idea that we don't have the money to do it, but fucking Montenegro does, is absolutely ridiculous. [quote] If something is simple, you should be able to explain it. You have not.[/quote] Dawg, I've given you examples of exactly what it is I mean multiple times. I've repeated myself so many times that I was honestly becoming self-conscious and beginning to wonder if maybe I was repeating myself too much. [quote]You've said a lot of what it isn't, rather than what it is.[/quote] I have explained what it is and what is isn't, multiple times. [quote]And the only clarifications you do make are easily refuteable/debateable.[/quote] Anything political and economic is debatable. As for refutable... well, you've yet to refute anything soo... [quote]It's not for no reason, it's to point out a fundamental flaw in an idea. (Which is basically my whole point.)[/quote] But you haven't... All you've done is repeatedly misunderstand and miss the point, leading me to have to explain the same thing in multiple ways, multiple times to the point where I had to debate with myself on whether or not I'd like to keep replying to your comments because it's starting to become maddening. [quote] Which would obviously be different wages, based on what person you are,[/quote] Uh, no. This would be a set minimum wage, essentially. [quote]where you live,[/quote] Maybe, sure. What's the problem? A living wage would be different in the UK, because living standards are different country to country. In the US, we can calculate what an appropriate living wage is state-by-state. [quote]how many live with you,[/quote] ??? No. A living wage would account for the cost of utilities, transport, food, child care, ect, but it would not be based on how many people live in the house. Unless we're talking about children the person might have, in which case that falls under child care. If you have an adult living in your house who doesn't have a job, I don't think that's something that's going to count towards what the living wage should be. [quote]how many pets you have,[/quote] lmao. No. A pet would be something you chose personally to get and care for on the side. This is like saying that the living wage would be different based on how many TVs you have. [quote] That couldn't have been a more appropriate oxymoron. 'well-defined' 'somewhat' (Kinda-sorta not really.)[/quote] Okay. You knew what I meant, didn't you? Shit's simple. [quote] Phones are a commodity in every sense of the word. You do not need phones to contact people. Also since you admitted phones are essential would that imply they'd be under 'the living wage'. What phone/service provider do they get?[/quote] No. You don't understand what a living wage is and this question right here proves it. This is mind-boggling. Furthermore, I never said phones were a basic necessity that I would include in the definition. I said they're pretty essential these days so I would not fault people for getting one. [quote] When my point is, you cannot possibly know what certain people 'basically' need to live.[/quote] Literally wat. We absolutely know what a person needs to live. Food, shelter, utilities. In some places that might extend to healthcare, as well, but not here because we're still busy debating whether or not we should let poor people die when they get sick. -- I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's basically you completely refusing to understand basic concepts and pretending like it's me that doesn't understand. Should have listened to myself when I thought about just not bothering to reply. But for the record, no, I'm not an expert in economics and I never said I was or pretended to be. Thing is, neither are you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending like you know what you're talking about anymore than I do. I think we both have strong opinions on what we think would work. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But these are nothing more than our opinions and our own personal defense of what we think works or would work.