4 ms·
This is something I have legitimately wondered for a while now, and maybe someone on here with an economics background has some links to share: Which is more e
by gamegoblin 8y ago
This is something I have legitimately wondered for a while now, and maybe someone on here with an economics background has some links to share:
Which is more economically efficient:
1. Pay workers above-market wages
2. Pay workers market wages, but use taxes and some sort of welfare to bring the workers effective income up to where it would be had you paid them above-market wages.
Presumably the taxes used to fund Option 2 would be something like a wealth tax (including corporate wealth).
My non-economist intuition is that Option 1 could have weird effects on the economy due to paying non-market-based wages.
- cryoshon 8y agothe problem is that the "market wages" generate both humanitarian disasters of poverty and also demand gaps wherein people can't afford to buy goods, which puts a drag on the economy. #2 is an issue because government transfers nearly always have terms attached. people get food stamps for food, housing assistance for housing, etc. so demand gaps can still occur because people still don't have the "right" kind of money. plus, it's less efficient because the government has to be involved. i'm in favor of a wealth tax, however. implementation issues aside, it's the most realistic chance we have of making businesses pay up.