3 ms·
> The bill is designed to create a “100 percent tax on corporations with 500 or more employees equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wag
by oconnor663 8y ago
> The bill is designed to create a “100 percent tax on corporations with 500 or more employees equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers.”
Not all low wage workers are equal in terms of the benefits they receive. If the new rule were as simple as this, employers would have an incentive not to hire e.g. parents with dependent children. Or not to hire people who are more likely to receive benefits in the future for whatever reason. I get that Sanders wants to enact transfers from the wealthy to the poor, but there are ways to do that that aren't a mismash of bad incentives.
Edit: Not to mention that this would give low wage employers a huge reason to oppose any new legislation to raise benefits. It just seems really poorly thought out. (Maybe no one expects it to pass, so it doesn't matter what the actual effects would be?)
- anothergoogler 8y agoAgreed, it would be far worse if Amazon were discouraged from exploiting desperate workers. No social cost is too high for cheap and fast order fulfillment.
- oconnor663 8y agoIt's easy to be sarcastic, but it's hard to measure social costs. "Stopped exploiting desperate workers" could mean paying people more, or it could mean firing desperate people and hiring people who are less desperate. If we're encouraging some mix of those two things, it's pretty important to figure out exactly what mix it is. And if there are alternative policies -- like say just giving people money -- that don't have the same complicated issues, it's pretty important to compare them.