|
|
|
|
|
by kokanator
1877 days ago
|
|
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. |
|