3 ms·

The theory is clear, but after a few decades the results are also clear. > say teenagers working at the supermarket This flawed assumption is where the theory

by runako 4y ago

The theory is clear, but after a few decades the results are also clear. > say teenagers working at the supermarket This flawed assumption is where the theory went wrong, IMHO. The EITC is designed around (say) 5 years of a young worker's life, but our labor market requires people in those roles through 5 decades of their lives. Low-wage employers have grown dependent on people of all ages to work for "teenager" wages through to retirement. > The EITC It's not just the EITC. Full-time low-wage employees don't really have any money, so they are subsidized by an array of federal and state programs. EBT/food stamps, Section 8/rental assistance, etc. Low-wage employees receive a lot of direct payments from taxpayers. (This is good!) In any case, it's worth discussing whether it is appropriate for companies like Walmart (profit per employee: $13k) to be allowed to pay their staff at such a rate that the taxpayer then has to pick up the tab for their employee's food stamps. Either case -- yes, it is totally accurate to say that employers are being subsidized by

strawhatguy 4y ago
This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested.
- runako 4y ago
  > This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. This is an important argument! The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well. By which I mean the outcome was broadly considered, across decades, not congruent with American values and preferences, which tilted toward electing representation to correct the situation. Which is not to say this wouldn't work elsewhere, just that America is not "elsewhere." > I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested. This would be an interesting experiment and IMHO is more intriguing that rehashing experiences that have already been repeatedly rebuffed by Americans.
  - strawhatguy 4y ago
    > The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well Actually no, it did work really well. The first century in the US saw leaps and bounds of economic growth, and for the common person most of all. Of course, generally things are better off today, after having benefited from all that early growth. Still, the pace of advancement has slowed, and most of that slowdown has come from people thinking they can redesign society.

by runako 4y ago

strawhatguy 4y ago

This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested.

runako 4y ago
> This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. This is an important argument! The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well. By which I mean the outcome was broadly considered, across decades, not congruent with American values and preferences, which tilted toward electing representation to correct the situation. Which is not to say this wouldn't work elsewhere, just that America is not "elsewhere." > I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested. This would be an interesting experiment and IMHO is more intriguing that rehashing experiences that have already been repeatedly rebuffed by Americans.
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  > The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well Actually no, it did work really well. The first century in the US saw leaps and bounds of economic growth, and for the common person most of all. Of course, generally things are better off today, after having benefited from all that early growth. Still, the pace of advancement has slowed, and most of that slowdown has come from people thinking they can redesign society.