Much like housing, the best solution usually isn't government price controls. Better (if feasible) is abundance in the market.
I think a flat tax + UBI is the only way to go. The dream of AI should be a society where maybe 10% of people have to work. The nightmare is if the other 90% still need work but can’t find it.
Where do all jobs come from? Ultimately they’re created by people, so I wouldn’t worry about there being a demand but no supply.
Our wants today are vastly different from our wants a hundred years ago, and thus the labor pool looks vastly different. We shouldn't make policy decisions based on the assumption that there is a limited lump of labor.
This made me pause and think for a moment.
Desire is not an external entity or being that manipulates us. Our biology generates desire, since it has been selected for by evolution through natural selection.
People create jobs.
But unlike the conventional picture people have in their head, it is a unidirectional creation process (i.e. by the "job giver"). The job is created through the dynamic of the "giver" and the "seeker".
Citation required. I assure you, wanting vs. being able to realistically acquire is a very powerful force of want extinguishment. You cannot, in fact, get a thing, if the world around you is not conducive to enabling you to pull the requisite capital together to meet the prices set. Something that is getting markedly harder for various strata in the economy currently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity
Sorry to be so overly-intellectual. I probably should’ve been simpler.
The corporate veil is extraordinarily valuable to the point where a minimum 10% tax on any money passing through options makes a lot of sense. However, the idea you can pass liability off for free is so pervasive you’d never get something like that to pass. Not because of how good or bad the idea is, but because of how effective voting blocks + donors are.
But I think the nightmare you imagine is not realistic. There isn't a lump of labor. We shouldn't make policy decisions based on the assumption that the labor pool will be limited.
Three people doing the work required to seed, spray, harvest 4,000 Hectares for assorted barley, canola, etc is commonplace today in areas that once struggled to farm a few hundred hectares with four brothers and a father.
Where labor has contracted in some places, it has grown elsewhere.
In any case, COVID was a hellish time for pretty much every economic metric, but for unemployment specifically, the catastrophe didn’t actually end up lasting that long, and the labor market in the U.S. has recovered remarkably well.
I think that’s fair, since even if you are homeless, as long you’re receiving unemployment benefits, you count as part of the statistic.
And there’s good reason to count certain people out of the labor force. Retired folks, stay-at-home parents, anybody else that’s willfully unemployed—if your working in or around government trying to make labor policy decisions, including these people gives you an inaccurate picture of the labor market. If you want to help people get jobs, you need to focus on the people that actually need help.
Of course no statistic is perfect, but broadly, I think that the unemployment rate is a useful and accurate measure. If you think otherwise, I’d invite you to propose a good alternative.
It’s not on me to invent a new statistic. It is on me to push back on ridiculous claims that minimize the fact that this statistic has been defanged over and over again in the decades since it was first introduced.
To include people who don’t want to be employed in the labor force is counter-productive, since why would you try to find jobs for people who don’t want them?
It’s not even that these people are “lazy” like many who (wrongly) disparage the unemployed say. They just aren’t looking for jobs at the moment—stay at home parents, retired people, anybody that doesn’t need/want to work. (And by the way, plenty of homeless people receive unemployment benefits and are therefore included in the statistic.)
The unemployment rate is useful because it helps us see how many people need jobs. If you start including people who don’t need jobs, the metric just becomes less useful.
To your other point, I’m not asking you to invent a new statistic. It’s just that when people say one metric isn’t working, someone smart usually has come up with alternatives. A lot of people for example don’t like using GDP, and thus economists have come up with HDI, GNI weighted GDP, or whatever else suits their taste.
I bring this up because there are few alternatives to unemployment metrics, simply because they are not nearly as problematic as you paint them to be. Practically every competent government on Earth uses the same measures for unemployment, and specifying the labor force to only people actively looking for work is very standard; if you want to say that this nearly ubiquitous method is wrong, I think it’s reasonable to ask what needs to be fixed.
Edit: only people who are homeless for less than six months would be on unemployment benefits. That doesn’t sound like “plenty” to me.
Eurostat, the Internation Labor Organization, OECD--what incentive do all these organizations have to globally misrepresent unemployment? Of course they measure and consider U6, but they choose to headline U3 instead not because it's prettier and they want to serve national propaganda interests, but because it's just more useful.
C'mon man. I have to give up on this thread.
Edit: it must just be a happy coincidence that U6 has never been lower than U3.
We would do well to improve safety nets so that everyone benefits.
You can't have a revolution based entirely on not having to wipe your ass (except when you still do because bidets are garbage).
Unless you are fresh out of college and working at some lame startup or coding sweatshop, mature white collar work has always been pretty damn close to "not having to work".
You're easily replaceable early on when your only value is doing, but with more experience come more meetings and responsibilities. You become valuable for knowing, and knowing is not mere knowledge.
Assuming that the years of experience have shaken out the chaff, the only source of stress for those who remain employed is what is already inseparable from life itself. Personal growth without work doesn't even make sense.
That's why it doesn't feel like work. That's why the concept of "not having to work" is pathological and ridiculous. Anyone feeling this way about "work" needs to get help. I'm totally serious when I say that.
For me they're a huge upgrade.
FYI in some places flat taxes are technically unconstitutional
This conversation usually derails, so to be clear no, I don’t think people should work for poverty wages, a viable business should include happy non-subsidized employees.
My question is whether a global price floor psychologically depresses wages by establishing a global price anchor. Price anchoring is well known to influence the price people will accept.
For jobs like cashier that are fungible just blanket get minimum wage, would they pay more without one when the employer can’t just point to the anchor price and say take it or leave it? Would they be faster to localize wages to local costs?
You think it's possible that the true wage the grocery store wants to pay its employees is actually higher than the price floor? But for some reason they can't think of any other numbers to write down on the paycheck? And without the price floor they'd be forced to think for themselves and reconsider their morals and the market conditions and their balance sheet and pay $20 an hour instead of $15?
I think it's much more likely the minimum wage can be interpreted as "we would pay you even less than this if it weren't illegal." See the tipped wage. They would pay you $0 if they could.
It's one thing to fight your baristas, it's another to fight your baristas, bean supplier, mail delivery, and freight movers all at once.
Mind you, this does not apply to white-collar positions like IT in the same manner. The salary bands are still quite strict -- 6 figures is still a rarity -- but you do negotiate them and can get meaningful raises.
Now days, companies offer top dollar for Junior-level AI talent. And you see where that's going.
So competition over a limited talent pool in combination with a vibrant economy and many successful companies that make a lot of money. At least historically.
High salaries isn't limited to tech. Bankers, lawyers, doctors e.g. tend to earn more in the US.
Another aspect is that you get paid more but you potentially have higher expenses. So some of the delta is related to cost of living. But not all.
I know that sounds like corny and biased American exceptionalism, but I think it’s just objectively true.
Other countries can have vastly superior government policy, and that shows up in significant ways (like Denmark having an even higher productivity than the U.S.), but nobody has played the productivity game at as big a scale as the U.S. has, and that’s sort of just an insurmountable advantage for the time being.
NVIDIA, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Google—-I could go on for a very, very long time. Those companies alone are going to create heavy competition within the tech sphere, and add on top of that Baumol’s cost disease from every other big U.S. industry, and you get the current situation.
No other country has the behemoth of capital and opportunity like the U.S. has. This will naturally have a big influence on things.
Why is funding harder? Culture and laws we created as a result. We're far less accepting of things like leverage M&As, options, flexible employee remuneration and conditions (especially for start-ups), etc. VCs therefore need to clear a far higher bar to mitigate risk, meaning only the very best proven ideas receive funding.
Further, investors tend to prefer lower, but more stable returns. There is much less appetite for moon-shots. I could speculate that this is partly driven by the tax structures. Why risk $50M if you know that 60% of the rewards would be taxed? You would use a much more conversative risk ratio, preferring 5% returns but very low risk. This extends to individuals, too. Why start a business when most of the rewards from the considerable risk will be taxed? Especially given the onerous business laws.
Denmark and Sweden are notable standouts. Our laws make it easy to start businesses, operate, and fire workers as needs change. However we still have very high taxes.
There is one final thought: most people I know do not aspire to become Ferrari owners with five mansions. We aspire to happy and healthy families with good friends, good wine, and cozy holidays. If this is one's aspiration, risking their financial stability for something they don't care about would not be very common. Danes who do aspire for the Ferrari lifestyle leave for the US.
One additional thing to mention though is that Americans are also just richer. Even if you include government benefits (social transfers), Americans rank extremely high on measures of disposable income per household. As far I’m aware that is the most complete measure of income, and despite being a massive country of almost 400 million, the median American is comparable to someone living in Luxembourg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income
As you’d expect, this effect only grows when you go up the ladder, and American millionaires are on average richer than say, Danish millionaires.
(Note, I’m not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is. For what it’s worth I think we could learn a lot from the Danish model, but that’s my own distinct, normative option.)
Thus, since there is just generally more capital to go around, capital is easier to raise.
(And as an American, there’s plenty of us here too who enjoy the good life, free of Ferraris and mansions!)
The people who risked their (and families) lives going west were taking very large risks for large rewards. And it's never stopped.