by the Sandwichman
Presumably... implicitly... tacitly... these bailouts are all about saving JAWBS.
I mean, is there any other rationale for them that would pass political muster? So can someone direct the Sandwichman to an econometric study that estimates just how many net JAWBS are saved or created per Billion Bail Dollars (BBD)? Note I said net JAWBS -- I don't want to hear any lump-of-labor silliness about the amount of work being fixed so that if someone gets laid off from CitiBank there won't be any new dog-walking or paid blogger positions opening up.
Obviously, economists have studied this matter thoroughly and there's a consensus out there about this stuff. Right?
7 comments:
One paid blogger ($0.0005 per view @ 10,000 views/per day is $1825.00/year) compares to one financial firm chief assistant to the assistant chief at $175,000/year plus options.
Is that what is meant by moral equivalence?
-- ml
To a real economist, Martin, a JAWB is a JAWB is a JAWB. Real economists don't get distracted by sissy non-quantifiable side-issues like hours of work, pay or "moral equivalence." Facts are facts, man.
Touche.
Ouch.
--ml
Forgive me if you've already addressed this, Sandwichman, but isn't employer-paid healthcare a big impediment to shortening hours by hiring more workers?
If a company has the same per-worker healthcare cost if they hire 60 workers at 80 hrs/week, or 80 workers at 60 hrs/week, that seems like a big incentive to stay at 60 workers.
Isn't this another strong argument for single-payer healthcare, to revmove it from the employee/employer realm so it no longer distorts hiring decisions?
Grassroots,
See my reply to trucker in the post on unions, unemployment and shorter hours.
Wait a minute. You mean I could get paid almost $2,000/year for blogging?
Anonymous grassroot said...
" If a company has the same per-worker healthcare cost if they hire 60 workers at 80 hrs/week, or 80 workers at 60 hrs/week, that seems like a big incentive to stay at 60 workers.
Isn't this another strong argument for single-payer healthcare, to revmove it from the employee/employer realm so it no longer distorts hiring decisions?"
The envelope,,,,,, please:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! It is a HUGE incentive to stay with the 60 employees instead of the 80. And the Sandwichman does not seem to say otherwise. He is dealing with more complex issues that remain after this 500 pound gorilla is removed.
There is an increase in per capita premiums as the size of a group falls and a decrease in the per capita premiums as the group grows. But there is no way that this effect outweighs the total health premium outlays of the employer unless you are taking things to unrealistic extremes.
Post a Comment