i’m confused. the government is subsidizing the corporations. the government isn’t subsidizing the individual. the individual has needs and it is the corporation or the government who can provide it. as the government is merely reactionary, it is only providing basic needs when the corporation does not.
you’d seriously be okay with the idea of your neighbour dying because you want an extra dollar? i’m all for free will and you make your own destiny but in many cases, there are swaths of people who are victim to circumstance. not everyone can be a hero and rise up out of adversity.
^But you’re again making the assumption that the only solution is through the government, whether that’s by subsidizing minimum wage earners or by reallocating resources to promote skilled labor through government run (or at least with the government’s money) education programs.
What you’re failing to grasp is that both of those scenarios are doomed from the start. I agree that the government shouldn’t subsidize any corporation, but they also suck at everything else so I don’t have any faith in the idea they would be able to promote a better quality of life for people that suck at it (mentally challenged people aside).
No, I have much more faith in humanity than that. I believe without the government’s assistance (or, more accurately, indefinite assistance) people would be more motivated to pull themselves up and find better work. So long as you raise the wage on jobs that any self-respecting adult should never do, or you provide them free money every month, you’re doing them a disservice. Both of those options are band-aids and don’t solve the problem. And if you think the government can promote programs to help bring those people into the skilled labor market then you don’t have any idea how our government works.
Can’t we just give every citizen a subsistence payment bi-weekly and not interfere in labor markets? Talk about efficient. Think about all the government programs that could be eliminated. No more GDP drag from social programs.
i would say yes. i think when government spending subsidizes below a certain wage level, i would say yes, this is possible. most economic discussions of minimum wage are far too basic and do not take into factor all of the government subsidy. everything i’m saying is purely speculation but it does seem quite inefficient for the economy and society for corporations to offer jobs that one cannot support oneself on and so the government subsidizes that job. if European governments overpaying their employees (i.e. labour) ended up bad for everyone, i don’t see how U.S. governments overpaying corporations doesn’t end up bad for everyone. it’s all about extreme disallocations of capital between the three pillars of corporations, labour and government. in greece, the government ran huge deficits to pay labour. in the u.s., the government is running huge deficits to pay corporations.
This is definitely true. I’ve said that from one of my first posts here.
They say “just get into a top-2 university then get into buy-side research” like anybody on Earth has the mental capabilities, upbringing, and financial capabilities to do such a thing. When I was 18, Harvard/NYU/Pennsylvania was about as attainable for me as the Lunar University of the Moon is for some of these guys.
Surely you say this in jest. Surely you didn’t just say “Hey, we should just give people money to live every week. Then we wouldn’t have to pay welfare.”
I think the suggestion is that there is some GDP maximizing minimum wage that is above $0. Such a wage would maximizime total productivity, but not total employment, at least that is my hypothesis.
No, but there is such a thing as going to a state school on GI benefits, then getting a job as a poorly paid tax accountant. To some people on AF, that would be a fate worse than death. But to some, that’s actually pretty good, because I feel like I’ve done a whole lot more with a whole lot less than most people. (end rant)
Edit - I’m not trying to be a martyr, but on the same token, I realize (through my own experiences) that it’s certainly possible to move through the different social/economic strata. And I think it’s easier to swallow the typical “let them work their way up the economic ladder” bullshit when it comes from somebody who actually DID work their way up the economic ladder, rather than having their ticket to Top-2 handed to them while they were still in the cradle.
i think we’re both looking for a similar thing just on opposite ends of the spectrum. you’re saying, kill minimum wage so that corporations creates an infinite number of jobs and let people pick up their bootstraps and get to work (though starving while they do it). i’m saying, raise minimum wage, let corporations axe the jobs that were useless to begin with, and educate/train the unemployed to find more gainful work. you’re looking for maximum employment. i’m looking for better quality employment. i still think my method is better for the majority of people and will end up in higher gdp growth through higher productivity.
The US spends $50+ billion on the EITC. It’s probably a better idea to hand that out weekly over the course of the year than to mail it out as a lump sum between February and April. Consider me on board.
I think this is actually somewhat legitimate. Give EVERYONE the money. Like a negative tax. Then end all social programs. This does cause some subsidy of companies issues at the low end of the earning spectrum though.
Well, essentially though I’d disagree with you on some of the fine points. I’m all about long term solutions and unfortunately to get it right you need to suffer through some short term pain. We had a great opportunity to correct some massive mistakes in 2008-9 but instead we took the easy way out. We’ll pay for it in the decades to come.
No more band-aids. Address the real issues, cut once and cut deep, embrace the pain, come out stronger than ever. It’ll never happen, of course, since politicians have to get elected, mostly by idiots, but a guy can dream.