Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
How would this model be better for the worker?
The American goes home with $100.00 gross.
The European goes home with $45.00 gross.
That American will make over twice what the European will. Factor in tax rates and the difference is even higher.
I may be reading your post wrong, but that just doesn't make sense to me.
|
I wouldn't say you were reading my post "wrong."
Directly under the portion of my post that you quoted I answered the point you raise.
Quote:
We might wonder about the plight of each worker who now only earns half as much ($45 income rather than a single worker making $100).
But two responses to this:
a) higher productivity would increase profits. It might be that you would actually have $200 to spend on labor, so you could have the workers produce for 6 hours.
b) two workers in a family could conceivably work for 3 hours each (6 total is still less than 10) and be able to reap the same total financial reward, while allowing each member to be productive work force (satisfying and healthful for economy) and family time (satisfying and healthful for society).
|
So from your answer to Manx regarding the inability to increase productivity (inherently in the job function), I can understand how point (a) wouldn't apply.
But point (b) would in that both parents from a home could share the workforce burden. Not to say that you should hire both people in a household, but I hope you're following what I'm putting down now.