Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I have frequently said "Economics should not be viewed as a morality play." This thread has good examples of contrary thinking.
Jeff Bezos earns more money than his workers. Duh! That's called ordinary capitalism. ("If you don't like it move back to North Korea!" )
Do be aware, by the way, that some small-business owners actually make LESS than their low-wage workers. They're struggling (gambling) in hopes of a turnaround. If they succeed, must they split the profits with those who "produced the goods or services"? If I bet on 22 at the roulette table, and 22 wins, must I split the proceeds with the croupier "who made it all possible"?
Emotionally I align with progressive Democrats. But some of their ideas are idiotic. I've previously mentioned watching Ted Kennedy on C-SPAN circa 1994 arguing with a bag of BigMac and Fries. "Don't you think you have a MORAL obligation to provide your employees with health insurance?" Who nominated that imbecile to be the Exalted Cyclops of the Democratic Party?
Obviously it's not just the Left that introduces "morality" inappropriately. If Amazon workers set up picket lines, the Right might chime in with "Don't you have a MORAL obligation to let Amazon hire scabs?"
I've heard the OPPOSITE argued! That if UBI (cf. Andrew Yang) were introduced, workers would be less desperate and companies like Amazon would need to offer more money to attract them.
Government-paid health care? Yes.
Government-subsidized child care? Yes.
Increase taxes on corporations and the rich? Yes.
Incentivize hiring by changing payroll tax schedules and insurance mandates? Yes.
Raise the federal minimum wage? Yes. It may be a good approach given political realities.
Government-mandated improvements in working conditions? Maybe.
But framing the discussion to label corporations and the rich as "Evil" or positing their "moral obligations"? This is nonsense. Count me out.
Jeff Bezos earns more money than his workers. Duh! That's called ordinary capitalism. ("If you don't like it move back to North Korea!" )
Do be aware, by the way, that some small-business owners actually make LESS than their low-wage workers. They're struggling (gambling) in hopes of a turnaround. If they succeed, must they split the profits with those who "produced the goods or services"? If I bet on 22 at the roulette table, and 22 wins, must I split the proceeds with the croupier "who made it all possible"?
Emotionally I align with progressive Democrats. But some of their ideas are idiotic. I've previously mentioned watching Ted Kennedy on C-SPAN circa 1994 arguing with a bag of BigMac and Fries. "Don't you think you have a MORAL obligation to provide your employees with health insurance?" Who nominated that imbecile to be the Exalted Cyclops of the Democratic Party?
Obviously it's not just the Left that introduces "morality" inappropriately. If Amazon workers set up picket lines, the Right might chime in with "Don't you have a MORAL obligation to let Amazon hire scabs?"
That appears to be magical thinking. By what cause-and-effect mechanism does the government subsidy enable the firm to keep paying so little?What logical justification do you have for claiming that a subsidy to a worker is a subsidy to her employer?
It's not hard to grasp, if workers are paid rates that are so low that it doesn't allow them to pay for the basics of rent, food, clothing, transport, where the shortfall is paid by government subsidy, the government subsidy enables the firm to keep paying their workers sweet ... all for their time and labour because, well, the government is taking care of it
I've heard the OPPOSITE argued! That if UBI (cf. Andrew Yang) were introduced, workers would be less desperate and companies like Amazon would need to offer more money to attract them.
Government-paid health care? Yes.
Government-subsidized child care? Yes.
Increase taxes on corporations and the rich? Yes.
Incentivize hiring by changing payroll tax schedules and insurance mandates? Yes.
Raise the federal minimum wage? Yes. It may be a good approach given political realities.
Government-mandated improvements in working conditions? Maybe.
But framing the discussion to label corporations and the rich as "Evil" or positing their "moral obligations"? This is nonsense. Count me out.