File this under “I’m got mine, the rest of you can sod off”!

  • Bill Stickers
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is there to serve us. The economist point is that everyone —in particular low income workers—will suffer as they everyone is effectively getting a 7% pay cut this year. That serves no one.

    Ideally there would be a few stay at home parents (families who can afford it), lawyers and doctors partners, and retirees out to the work force. These are the people that have spare money to spend on things and are driving up prices. Not low income workers. Unfortunately the employment rate is the only proxy measurement we have for this though.

    • hgwrgjo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it’s also the low wage earners that is most likely to lose their job because of supply and demand.

      • Bill Stickers
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No idea what would happen and reality is messy.

        But hypothetically these people who can afford to give up their jobs (aforementioned list) are hogging up low and middle income jobs (admin at the GP clinic / law firm) for ”fun” money, so there would be more easy/entry level jobs available for low skilled workers.

        On the upper end, soon-to-be-retirees who are currently managers could make the jump so everyone below them gets to move up the ladder making entry level positions available.

        I’m not sure how you could incentivise this though.

      • w2qw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends more on the industry. Higher income is usually more affected by recessions.