4 ms·
That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas,
by pj_mukh 3y ago
That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas,
If it was a childcare voucher that was guaranteed to get your child a seat that could be maybe exchanged for cash if you don’t want to go to work, that would be fine.
It’s the same problem with UBI. I don’t need a basic income or childcare subsidy.
I need a basic purchasing power.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas, Compared to the existence of HCOL areas without a subsidy, no, its not even incentivizing, much less forcing that. Compared to a hypothetical system which accelerates existing price divergence by adding extra subsidies in already high-cost areas, sure, but drawing people out of HCOL areas also mitigates HCOL.
- pj_mukh 3y ago“ drawing people out of HCOL areas also mitigates HCOL.” With a net reduction in agglomeration effects and resultant productivity. Pointless experiment, I’d rather the government unleash infrastructure building in HCOL to make it cheaper and incentivize child-care workers (and other essential functions) to move there. With growth every LCOL will become an HCOL if we don’t solve the problem now. See: Real-estate prices in Boise, Idaho.