4 ms·

They should pay more.

renewiltord 6y ago
'Should' isn't a useful thing in this discussion. When thinking about policy there is only behaviour pre-intervention and behaviour post-intervention. In this case, you'd note that there are certain businesses that don't consider themselves viable at the current value of unemployment benefits if unemployment behaves as it does right now. Then you see if you're okay with losing those businesses and if you are, then so be it, you think it's worth the trade-off. If you're not okay, then you need to tune the intervention, e.g. unemployment is guaranteed for some time even if you become re-employed, or 'unemployment' is guaranteed to all, or you lower the payment, etc.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- NeuNeurosis 6y ago
  The only thing I would retort is that you are assuming their are only two outcomes, the incentives get realigned to allow businesses to operate under preexisting circumstances or we don't change incentives and these businesses fail. I would totally agree we need to look at behavioral outcomes, I would say that we need to look at it from the employer side and immigration side as well not just the domestic labor side.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Only stated it like that to keep it concise. Ultimately, I guess my point is that it isn't a moral question. Moral incentives are hard to provide so policy centres around the levers we know to pull. Saying "businesses should" without incentivizing that is just saying "users are holding the phone wrong". So yes, you are right that there are many parameters that can be tuned.
- LiquidSky 6y ago
  >'Should' isn't a useful thing in this discussion. Your own comment refutes this, you just use different wording. Policies are created with certain goals in mind, i.e., how things should be. You then see whether your policies have achieved this goal, and reevaluate accordingly.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Perhaps I worded that poorly. That's fair criticism. I just mean that making some policy and then saying "businesses should do X" isn't useful. That's like making a phone a certain shape and then saying "people are holding the phone wrong".

'Should' isn't a useful thing in this discussion. When thinking about policy there is only behaviour pre-intervention and behaviour post-intervention. In this case, you'd note that there are certain businesses that don't consider themselves viable at the current value of unemployment benefits if unemployment behaves as it does right now. Then you see if you're okay with losing those businesses and if you are, then so be it, you think it's worth the trade-off. If you're not okay, then you need to tune the intervention, e.g. unemployment is guaranteed for some time even if you become re-employed, or 'unemployment' is guaranteed to all, or you lower the payment, etc.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
NeuNeurosis 6y ago
The only thing I would retort is that you are assuming their are only two outcomes, the incentives get realigned to allow businesses to operate under preexisting circumstances or we don't change incentives and these businesses fail. I would totally agree we need to look at behavioral outcomes, I would say that we need to look at it from the employer side and immigration side as well not just the domestic labor side.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Only stated it like that to keep it concise. Ultimately, I guess my point is that it isn't a moral question. Moral incentives are hard to provide so policy centres around the levers we know to pull. Saying "businesses should" without incentivizing that is just saying "users are holding the phone wrong". So yes, you are right that there are many parameters that can be tuned.
LiquidSky 6y ago
>'Should' isn't a useful thing in this discussion. Your own comment refutes this, you just use different wording. Policies are created with certain goals in mind, i.e., how things should be. You then see whether your policies have achieved this goal, and reevaluate accordingly.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Perhaps I worded that poorly. That's fair criticism. I just mean that making some policy and then saying "businesses should do X" isn't useful. That's like making a phone a certain shape and then saying "people are holding the phone wrong".