[kokanator]

I assume your are stating that putting businesses out of business will solve either of these issues? More competition for workers increases wages not the other way around. If you decrease the number of competitors for labor in a market the cost of labor will actually decrease since there will be less employers for workers to seek out better opportunities.

This is simple supply and demand.

What we have in this case is what happens at times in the commodities market ( before you bash me, no people are NOT commodities but the example serves ). Short sighted thinking may tell a government to for instance buy 25% of the corn from the market ( or force ethanol into gas ) to create an artificial raise in the price of corn. However, in the long term farmers will plant more corn and the price of corn will soon tank from oversupply.

What we have here is the government removing employees from the employment market to force wages higher. The problem is that it is not sustainable ( remember the businesses creating tax revenue to pay for it are now out of business ). Eventually those unemployed workers will be forced back into the labor market ( just like the extra corn ) and there won't be enough jobs for the number of workers and labor prices and benefits will tank.

Helping people through the COVID pandemic was necessary and appropriate. Using that as an excuse to restructure the market seems like bad timing.

"If unemployment benefits pay better than your job, that says something about the employer, not the unemployment benefits."

This is a rare situation. It used to be you received about 80% of your wage on unemployment. Now you can make as much as 200% your wage on unemployment. Remember unemployment benefits were intended to catch you if you experienced a crisis not sustain you for the long haul.

[bsder]

> I assume your are stating that putting businesses out of business will solve either of these issues?

We have deemed jobs that pay too little to be a nuisance to society and that they absolutely should be put out of business.

That is the whole point of the minimum wage.

The problem is that the minimum wage is so pitifully low that economically effective unemployment benefits are significantly higher. If the minimum wage were $15 (which is still below where it should be due to cost of living adjustments), unemployment benefits wouldn't look anywhere nearly so attractive.

[neilwilson]

Business is there to serve society, not the other way around.

Pay the wage or get out of the market so that superior businesses with better productivity can grow.

"And your tax dollars and your children's tax dollars have made it all possible."

Other way around. Payments from government are what make tax payments possible - which will always match what government pays out for any positive tax rate if everybody spends all they earn.

If they don't (ie they save - which is what causes a deficit) then that will catch up when they get around to spending those savings. [0]

" there won't be enough jobs for the number of workers"

There should always be enough jobs for the number of workers - with the state providing a job at the living wage to top up the permanent shortage that comes from relying entirely on the private sector.

All the private sector has to do then is pay the wage if they want the labour. Competition for labour then works, and private firms can replace jobs with machines without anybody getting too upset about it. All of which drives forward productivity and the overall standard of living.

Labour should always be reassuringly expensive. Then we make best use of it because it is scarce.

[0] The Deficit Myth, Stephanie Kelton. https://www.amazon.com/Deficit-Myth-Monetary-Peoples-Economy...

[kokanator]

> Payments from government are what make tax payments possible

Can you expound on this a bit? I think I am not understanding what you are stating. The way I read it at this point is that the taxes on a government payment is what makes the tax revenue possible. The math doesn't work here in the way I am understanding it. Unfortunately the link is to a book which I cannot read directly.

>Superior businesses with better productivity can grow

Businesses typically gain productivity as they scale. So that little delicatessen on the corner that makes the most amazing pastrami sandwich and is a neighborhood gathering spot is very very inefficient but is serving a great purpose. If all of these types of businesses die we are left with McDonalds which if anything isn't 'for the people'.

[neilwilson]

"The math doesn't work here in the way I am understanding it."

The maths is very simple. Government spends $100, and that is taxed at x%. The person receiving that spending as income gets $100 - x%($100) as income. They then spend that income with somebody else, and so on like a stone skipping across a pond. Total up the deductions in the geometric series and you'll find that it matches the initial injection for any positive tax rate. All that changes is the number of hops.

All very straightforward once you realise that money is a dynamic concept and pops into being as required to ensure transactions get done before disappearing again. Loans create deposits.

"So that little delicatessen on the corner that makes the most amazing pastrami sandwich and is a neighborhood gathering spot is very very inefficient but is serving a great purpose."

It is. And if it is that great then it will be able to charge a sufficient artisan premium for its product. If it can't, and it can't raise the capital to fund its productivity curve, then it will go bust. That's how markets work.

You don't get to push the cost down onto poor people by using a system feedback that ensures there are always a lack of jobs. There should always be more jobs than people that want them, not fewer - because the harm from the lack of a job is far far greater than the harm from the lack of a profit to the undercapitalised.

Then those products that are genuinely great will come into being - having been funded by adequate capital.

[kokanator]

The maths make sense to the point that the money stays onshore and someone does save/invest the money. Again, I may have missed something here.

>You don't get to push the cost down onto poor people by using a system feedback

The current market (system feedback) is built on top of the government programs to date. Blaming businesses for operating within this framework the government has created seems misplaced. If we believe therefore that this framework is creating harm why do we believe adding more government to it will resolve the current issues. Wouldn't it seem we should remove the programs businesses have used entirely and then they would need to compete for employees increasing wages and benefits in the process?

BTW. I grew up in a logging community where I saw everything you discuss in action. Every summer the large logging companies would "lay off" their work crews for weather. The state would then pay their employees through unemployment until the weather changed. The smaller logging operations didn't do this because they wouldn't survive if they didn't work so they chopped firewood and worked on equipment. They didn't provide the same full benefits the larger companies did but they did provide consistent employment.

In this model the state was subsidizing the large 'more efficient' companies while the smaller players were taking care of their own.