4 ms·
I'm curious why you see Sanders' plan as a "clean and elegant" solution to this problem. It is a solution, but it seems likely to introduce some bad incentives
by justbuchanan 8y ago
I'm curious why you see Sanders' plan as a "clean and elegant" solution to this problem. It is a solution, but it seems likely to introduce some bad incentives at hiring time. For example, if a high school student and a single mother apply for the same job, which one should Amazon hire? Right now, both cost Amazon the same, but under the Sanders plan, hiring the single mother would likely cost a lot more due to the chargeback.
This writeup has some more discussion on the likely negatives of the plan:
https://www.cbpp.org/poverty-and-inequality/sanders-khanna-bill-risks-unintended-side-effects-that-could-hurt-lower https://www.cbpp.org/poverty-and-inequality/sanders-khanna-b....
- arcticbull 8y agoFair, I hadn't considered that. I guess I'm just happy the conversation is being had. That said to solve your specific problem, I'd say this is meant to be a punitive measure and therefore it doesn't need to be a 1:1 dollar-for-dollar cost recovery program. Take the 80th percentile burden on the government from underpayment, assign a 50% surcharge as penalty, then apply it for each employee paid less than a living wage, period. Now the mother costs just as much as everyone else, and it's a lot - so now it's in their interest to simply pay a living wage as it would be less expensive than paying the penalties. These problems have solutions, let's focus on finding them instead of pointing out problems and throwing our hands up. Or better yet don't tie it to the cost. Fine them. Or like. Set a living minimum wage.