The other day I made an observation on a social media network; that borrowed from something Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection said in
one of his posts. It spoke to the
President proposing to send employers $4,000 if they hired an individual who
had been out of work for six months.
Professor Jacobson did a nice job of
showing how a $40,000 job cost the employer $65,000 and the $4K the President
was offering would do nothing to incentivize the employer; it would just pay
him/her for a decision they would make regardless. So in effect it was throwing tax dollars at
someone without a good reason to do so.
The response from my liberal friends was
predictable. I didn’t know what I was
talking about, the President wasn’t doing this to pay people who were already
planning to hire someone, he was doing this to pay people who weren’t going to
hire anyone, besides most people don’t make $40,000 dollars. So I changed the analogy to show how even to
create a full time minimum wage job it would cost about $20 - 25,000 and it was
unlikely the appeal of a $4,000 gift from the government would lead an employer
to do something they weren’t planning to do already. The response to this was to say I should look
at it from the worker’s point of view.
In fact here is the response.
Okay - Let's look at the math a different way - and NOT from the EMPLOYER's point of view. Let's look at it from the WORKER's Point of view - and especially those THOUSANDS of workers who are NOT - Working! ... How much unemployment benefit do you think they are making a week - which is taxable? .. Does it add up to what your Corporate America is so afraid to spend? ... AND - that OLD way of thinking about taxes that an Employer pays on each employee is outdated. I do payroll every month and it is NOT as much as it used to be - mostly because of things like health savings plan deductions - BEFORE taxes get assessed. It's a whole different ballgame, John. The OLD thinking just does NOT apply any more. It's time for a CHANGE.
This
was so convoluted that I really didn’t know what to say, fortunately I had
posted a nice video from Bill Whittle just a short time ago that helped me understand
how this all plays out. I was looking
forward to round two, but someone else attempted to explain and it went just as
smoothly. So I decided to just let it
go. But if this is typical of the reasoning Liberals use it is no wonder we have a problem here.
5 comments:
I'm afraid I don't understand the gist of their argument. Unemployed workers would like work. They won't get it unless employers hire them. Employers won't hire unless doing so meets their cost/benefit analysis. That said, how is any of what your correspondent wrote relevant?
They seem to be suggesting that it is unfair that corporate America isn't spending their money. Am I wrong in hearing an insinuation that they should be made to spend it, for the greater good? If so, "Change" might mean government coercion. I'm not sure that's the change I'm looking for.
Wow...great post John. Check out ..oh I 'll send you a link.
W.B., Your assessment is exactly what I came away with... Those corporations owe the workers all their money. Just a less articulate version of the foolishness from M. Moore and BHO.
Jeannette, thanks for the link. I'll read it and get back to you.
The old way of thinking involves logic and actual numbers. The new way of thinking involves CAPITAL letters, emotional appeal, empty rhetoric and demogoguery. Get WITH it, John!
Mark,
Why didn't I see that? Foolish me! Love the work you are doing on Searock
Post a Comment