sodaseller
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2004
- Messages
- 2,701
He blames both, though I am sure he would hold tax policy to be the biggest bogeyman. But since Krugman mentioned hours worked, he doesn't get to it till the end. No doubt that he thinks there is nothing more important than lowering the top rates so that the lower classes can work harder - that's for sure. For one, it makes it possible to hire more domestic help.bsnyder said:I disagree. He blames tax policy, not labor policy, for France's disasterous unemployment rate. Which I notice you haven't really commented on.
You can argue cultural and legal pressures all you want. That doesn't change the reality of the unemployment rates, and the lack of choice.
Never heard of Lochner. Care to enlighten me?
Of course, he can be free of the crushing oppression by moving to Iraq - no real tax rates to speak of, and no regulation. Nothing holding back that entrepreneurial spiri. Plenty of other jurisdictions are similarly enlightened
And you're missing the point - those unemployed are not at issue in whether those employed work 35 or 40 hours. The effect is almost nil. It was a nonpoint in terms of that issue, which is why Krugman logically handled it as such, speaking of in terms of the overall society. Of course, we don't really try to maximize employment either, and we have many more employees at low wages
Lochner v. New York - 1905 USSC decision upholding "freedom of contract" to permit workers to bargain away overtime, etc. Move back to that prelapsaruian pure state