> I dunno, sounds like employing one person that is almost 4 times as productive for less than half a cost would be overall good move. Why assume that the work

> I dunno, sounds like employing one person that is almost 4 times as productive for less than half a cost would be overall good move. Why assume that the worker is four times as productive? Even if the same number of transactions occur because everyone goes to the one open shop, we've still destroyed 64K of GDP by canning four employees. > Specially when the 4 couldn't properly pay their living costs. The 4 people working for $8/hour were contributing 64K per year to paying their living costs. By destroying their jobs have you made them better able to properly pay their living costs? Of course not, you've merely transferred the cost of supporting them to some other poor schmuck. Reducing economic activity and raising taxes is not a recipe for increased prosperity.