Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (5613)	1/10/2017 8:32:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 365050

The one who quits and just get unemployment is a very relevant person in this equation because potentially you face a slight cost from his action, much more likely so if that action is common. You have to consider the impact of the benefits on all actors and potential actors in the market. If fewer people are willing to sell their labor you might have to pay more for it, or search longer for it or even go without it. . I benefit from the one who does work for me, and supplements his pay from me with the other social support he gets. You benefit from his labor, but that doesn't mean you benefit from any welfare he receives. Does the welfare cause this person to work for you? Probably not. Does it cause them to accept a lower wage? Probably not. So how do you benefit from the welfare benefit this person receives? Its possible that the welfare payment doesn't impact the situation at all (esp. since you say you pay above market wages and so aren't trying to only pay the minimum you could possibly get away with). Its also possible that it increases your costs (or if not yours the costs of others in similar situations). Either way it isn't a subsidy to you. Its only remotely a subsidy (and even then a rather indirect one, I wouldn't personally call it a subsidy but I wouldn't have spent all this time talking about it either) if the worker will work for less money from you because they receive the welfare benefit. And yes, if he lacked the extra kicker, he would almost certainly look around. You are arguing that people are fools. You said "I pay, and always have paid, well above the going rate", if that's the case how is this person going to get more whether or not they get benefits?