4 ms·
I don't see how there is any difference between 1) Preserving high wages by stifling the availability of workers and then charging a higher tax on the employed
by euroclydon 16y ago
I don't see how there is any difference between
1) Preserving high wages by stifling the availability of workers and then charging a higher tax on the employed to pay unemployment benefits.
And,
2) Letting there be more competition for available jobs, forcing wages down, but employing more people.
- tptacek 16y agoIf you believe that unemployment benefits habituate people to unemployment lifestyles, then reducing wages and increasing employment has the effect of "unsticking" people who would otherwise be locked into unemployment. That's the difference. There isn't really a controversy about whether unemployment benefits incentivize unemployment. They clearly do. In the absence of beneits, people would very rapidly find ways of obtaining income. The point of unemployment benefits is to allow them to find better income streams; ie, not by selling blood. If all unemployment benefits do is delay the inevitable trip to the blood bank, they are indeed a poor idea.