| you sure about that? Lots of progressive policies stimulate job growth e.g. infrastructure act, CHIPS act, Obamacare, support for public transit, etc. are all make it easier and less risky to hire people. I do agree with you about the disadvantages of the mad king routine, which injects uncertainty, risk, and chaos... |
| |
| ▲ | nickff a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Big-spending subsidies like CHIPS definitely stimulate growth in the targeted industry, with film being a classic example of how impactful the subsidies can be. The issue is that the subsidies are paid for by taxes on everything else. Realistically, the regulatory burdens on small & medium businesses are probably a bigger deterrent to long-term growth than high business tax rates though (and progressive policies have been responsible for much of the regulatory burden). | |
| ▲ | baggy_trough a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, I am sure. Progressive policies such as raising the minimum wage, mandating benefits such as paid leave, and making it easier for workers to sue for various infractions, some of an extremely technical nature, has the effect of making it more expensive and legally risky to hire workers. There's an enormous laundry list of such policies and progressives never seem to get tired of inventing new ones. The result will be that less workers are hired than otherwise. | | |
| ▲ | dotnet00 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You're definitely correct in saying that there would be far more jobs to go around if we went back to industrial revolution era worker's rights. The utter gall of people to want to afford rent and time with their families. | | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen a day ago | parent [-] | | Actually, that may not be obviously correct. The economy is circular. If workers don't have any money, they can't spend it and there's no money to hire workers. |
| |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is such a nothingburger of a point that gets trotted out every time these discussions happen. No business I have ever worked for in my entire career has given a wet shit about the "regulatory burden" of hiring. We hire the minimum number of people we think can do a given job effectively, and then products end prices are based on those expenses, raw materials, with an amount on top for profit. The regulatory and compliance burden is an expense, sure, but it was an expense the second we hired one person. The work is more for 150 people vs 1, sure. But that's literally why you have an HR department, that's their entire reason to exist. If your business can't employ people without abusing them you don't belong in business, period, paragraph. Stop bellyaching about the work you have to do to run a business and do your fucking job. |
|
|
