| HappySqurriel said: One thing that never seems to be asked when discussing the redistribution of wealth is how well has it worked so far. If you look at systems like welfare, workfare, food stamps, and rental subsidies and measure success based on the ability for people to improve their standard of living in the absence of these wealth transfers it is obvious that they haven't worked. In fact, with how these programs distort the economy it is difficult to argue that these people are better off while they're on these programs. Welfare is the most obviously flawed system being that you take people who lack education and experience to earn a decent living, and you pay them while preventing them from gaining a quality education or any experience. All worker subsidies distort the market in a similar ways. In all markets you will have companies that pay more than other companies in order to attract better employees; and (in this context) better employees means individuals who have more experience, are smarter, harder working, or are better able to take on greater responsibility. These companies don't pay more as an act of charity, they do so because the competitive advantage they gain from hiring better employees makes up for the increased wages. Now, when you subsidize employees who are earning less than a living wage to a living wage you create a subsidy for companies who pay low wages, a cost to companies who pay a high wage, and remove the competitive advantage of paying a living wage for companies. In other words, you effectively eliminate jobs that pay an adequate wage in favour of jobs that pay low wages. |
I can't speak for America, but to me it seems the welfare system in New Zealand has overall been successful in its aims.
