|
|
 Originally Posted by dasher
Meanwhile, we are all paying for the minimum wage employees, a good percentage of whom get government assistance. We will save a lot of money when they are being paid more.
I should add that this isn't true, and the overwhelming majority of economists all over the spectrum agree with that assessment. The idea gets a ton of play in the media, though. Anyways, regardless of the fact that any extra labor costs would be passed on as higher consumption costs which eliminate savings, the idea that business is taking from taxpayers is the opposite of how it should be framed. Business is what drives the economy and upward mobility, not taxes, and if taxes are meant for anything it's to help business and labor. This is why a scaling subsidized wage would work phenomenally well at reducing welfare costs while skyrocketing employment and economic growth. But scaling subsidized wages are not popular to talk about because most forms of welfare that people like are captured by special interests and those who are against welfare tend to be against it wholesale, which means even if they could improve the welfare system, they don't want to because they want it to not work at all so it's forced to be scrapped entirely.
Scaling subsidized wage is loved by economists and has gotten some play on the internet, but not much. It's politically unfeasible as well, just like other incredibly important things like eliminating tax incentives to consume mortgages and healthcare
|
Reply With Quote