|
|
|
|
|
|
by virtuous_signal
1814 days ago
|
|
|
>> You shouldn’t be allowed to pay your employees so little that they are eligible for government benefits. Although a common talking point, it is not inherently a bad thing that low-wage workers can qualify for welfare [1] and it's probably less distortionary to the free market than mandating a higher wage. As an analogy, pretend that the government has decided it would be a good idea that everyone be able to eat apples. It is absolutely better to target an appropriate amount of money at the poorer population so that everyone can afford them, than to dictate that the apple seller must lower their apple prices. The latter would result in less people overall having apples (due to the seller restricting their supply or just shutting down). [1] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/does-the-government-subsi... |
|
|
The appropriate thing to do then is for the state to use the labour that they would otherwise subsidise to produce apples.
Which makes sense since the actions of the suppliers shows that there is no more productive advantage in paying a profit share. They are incapable of using the shortage of labour market signal to innovate and automate - thereby producing more with less.
Subsidy is never good for the free market. Nor is giving a monopoly over supply to capitalists. Capitalists should know that they are only permitted to exist where they drive forward productivity. Once they cease to do that in a market segment, then they are out of business.
Free markets only work when both sides can say 'no deal'.