We *could* raise taxes and do income support, but we're not going to do that because it means raising taxes on the urban professionals who make up part of the core Democratic base.
-
For another, "your members will be paid a lot more but you'll have half as many" has never been a viable deal for a union to make, and service workers' unions have huge organizing challenges as it is. You can argue they're wrong about job losses but not that they don't care.
The unions obviously don't expect to lose members. They may, quite reasonably, expect costs to be passed on to consumers (e.g.: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20171445&&from=f …), which would be fine with me if those were mostly high-income consumers...but these are minimum wage jobs...
-
-
...and so I worry that cost-pass-through will primarily go to *low* income consumers.
-
If cost pass-through is small, as I for one expect (and I think most progressives do also), then the fact that many of these low income consumers ought *also* to be beneficiaries of significantly expanded income should cushion that blow.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.