Interesting, glad to see, at the very least, a bit of patriotism returning to the idea of jobs. In big companies the push to outsource is strong and political correctness prevents much dissent.
Would still like to see a government regulation help as well: e.g. perhaps companies with more employees per profit would have a tax incentive and companies with fewer employees per profit would have a penalty. This way you essentially pass on 'unemployment' payments to companies rather than giving handouts from the government. Presumably companies would thus at least try to use the labor they were being required to hire. I know this sounds a bit like central planning, but doggonit' as we approach an era where we can survive with few in work due to machine help, we may need to regulate in a form of wealth redistribution. Quite frankly I'd rather see it done through companies than through the government directly. Of course the fact that I don't think the government today can manage a new deal type program is probably also a sign that the government won't be able to pass anything like this to begin with.
>perhaps companies with more employees per profit would have a tax incentive and companies with fewer employees per profit would have a penalty.
That would be terrible. You'd be penalizing the Googles and Apples of the world, who create good jobs, and rewarding the Walmarts, who create shitty ones.
Agreed. Our friend is afraid of a problem that has never existed in history. A society that is increasing in productivity and wealth just creates new types of employment opportunities, not unemployment.
Well, currently the government punishes companies that hire employees-- all sorts of payroll, worker's comp, and unemployment taxes, and also workplace legal liability that is extreme in the U.S. To the degree there is already a lot of central planning in U.S. labor markets, the government actively works against employment.
The US is an incredibly easy country to start a company in. Low tax (yes, even if the media doesn't believe it), easy bankruptcy laws (you don't go to jail for defaulting on debts and you can start again), low corruption, low barriers to entry, government support in many industries, very weak labour laws in most states, plenty of capital floating about, etc. If you think the US is a difficult country to start a business in, you need some perspective. Relatively, it is one of the easiest countries in the world and the easiest large country (over 50 million people) for investment.
Thats a nice saying and I hate to ruin it but believe me most people in Denmark knows that the tax on fatty foods is just an excuse to bring in more money to the government.
I mean are you really going to buy less meat because it went up 5%?
You might not, and I might not, but some people will. Like a lot of things in modern society it's all about the margins. The effects of such a small increase aren't flashy or obvious, but they're still real.
A vice tax on fatty foods makes no sense if (1) you are trying to improve the health of the populace, and (2) you know about the health benefits of ketogenic diets[1]. If those are Denmark's goals, then they should instead be taxing sugary foods. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that Denmark is either (a) dumb, or (b) purposefully decreasing their citizens' health.
Would still like to see a government regulation help as well: e.g. perhaps companies with more employees per profit would have a tax incentive and companies with fewer employees per profit would have a penalty. This way you essentially pass on 'unemployment' payments to companies rather than giving handouts from the government. Presumably companies would thus at least try to use the labor they were being required to hire. I know this sounds a bit like central planning, but doggonit' as we approach an era where we can survive with few in work due to machine help, we may need to regulate in a form of wealth redistribution. Quite frankly I'd rather see it done through companies than through the government directly. Of course the fact that I don't think the government today can manage a new deal type program is probably also a sign that the government won't be able to pass anything like this to begin with.