3 ms·
> On top of that even if they're losing a lot of money they're still getting all the benefits of the government they're just not paying into the system in a pro
by vmception 6y ago
> On top of that even if they're losing a lot of money they're still getting all the benefits of the government they're just not paying into the system in a proportion
That's such a weak argument undermining your deeper potentially stronger retrospective. I've seen that argument before and it requires basically brainwashing that a particular government (the US, if we're being honest) is offering sooo much infrastructure that was required to make a profit. "Roads, schools, and such an amaaaazing court system". And that's just not true to domestic and heavily international business, and even if it was there would be a diminishing return that this argument doesn't even begin to account for.
- rtkwe 6y agoI think a lot of the difference is just how expansively I see the benefits of things like schools. For instance no matter how poorly they perform relative to international standard they're still essentially free childcare for every person in the US which frees up so many people into the workforce. Just look at how much panic there was over the fact that keeping schools closed or very limited was the best way forward for public health, it really highlights how much work they do just letting more people into the workforce.