3 ms·

Did you read all the way to the end of TFA?

• jerf 15y ago
  Yes. It solves the wrong problem. The problem is that the cost of an employee exceeds the benefits. Everybody agreeing to take on employees whose costs exceed their benefits is just a mutual suicide pact. You can't get around that fact. If the benefits exceeded the costs, they would already be hiring, and there would be no problem to solve. If the costs exceed the benefits, then slapping yet more costs into the equation, even if everybody agrees to shoulder them, doesn't solve the problem! And the idea that you can get entire industries to agree to mutual suicide is just idiocy. In the startup world, we call that a "boil the ocean" plan. Businesses would have massive incentives to defect. This is all just blithering economic idiocy from top to bottom. (Of course, in NYTland, people never respond to economic incentives, and a business is prima facie acting immorally if their income exceeds their expenditures. Also, cost/benefit analysis is a radical and controversial political idea that must be downvoted, rather than a simple, direct consequence of basic economic reality.)