richardhutnik said:
And then reallocating that which was obtained through such threats to others who benefit. For those on the receiving end of the reallocation, it works fine. Also, it works for people who want to limit others from doing things. And I didn't post anywhere in my initial post (I don't believe I did) that how this works is desirable, just that it works for those who successfully use it. And it is because it works that it draws people to use it more. |
People who receive the "reallocation" are not fine with it though ...
Individuals who are on food stamps would prefer to earn more money rather than take a handout but they can't find better paying jobs because programs like food-stamps act as a massive subsidy to companies who pay their employees poorly.
Henry Ford was well known in part because he paid his empoyees far more than the competition to attract the best employees, and he reduced costs through increased productivity rather than reducing labour costs. Suppose (for argument sake) that people still believe in these concepts and would gladly pay their employees twice as much if it resulted in more than twice as much product being produced. When the government subsidizes their lower wage paying competitors by providing food stamps and rental subsidies and has "progressive taxes" that disproportionately impact his employees when he pays them more how much more does he have to pay his employees in order to double their real wage?
