|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Related Topics Brooks' Latest
http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2012/01/brooks-latest
David Brooks, in his latest New York Times column:
If you believe in the dignity of labor, it may make sense to oppose an infrastructure program that would forcefully extract, through taxation, money earned through labor and give it to politicians and lobbyists to dispense for pet pork-barrel projects like bridges to nowhere built by overpaid union contractors and dressed up with the name "infrastructure." And: "wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable?" What happened to the personal responsibility and fiscal restraint Mr. Brooks was touting in the previous sentence? Are we supposed to believe that women will find previously unmarriageable men newly desirable now that they come with a government-provided wage subsidy? If the "wage subsidy" comes from taxes imposed on the higher-earning women, how does that make them better off than they were to begin with? I'm looking forward to a whole column, rather than just a throwaway line, from Mr. Brooks on this particular proposal. He could use it to explain who is suggesting this, if it's been tried anywhere and whether it worked when tried, why it's just, why it's not sex discrimination, and why it wouldn't create perverse incentives or unintended consequences (why bother finishing school or acquiring skills if your low-wage job comes with a "wage subsidy"?). This American Prospect article has grist for such a column. by Editor | Jan 6, 2012 at 7:32 am Related Topics: David Brooks, Government Spending receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free futureofcapitalism.com mailing list Reader comments on this item
Comment on this item |
Subscribe to the Mailing List ADVERTISEMENT Most Mailed |
||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2013 FutureOfCapitalism, LLC. home | archives | about | mailing list | how to help | FoC @ facebook | FoC @ twitter | terms of use | privacy policy news transparency | smartertimes |
|||||||||||||||||||