Comment by WalterBright

> Rich people would be sad because taxes.

Something tells me the people in charge most definitely do not want this at all…

It is sad how many allegedly and vocally "free market" capitalists don't actually want a liquid and free labor market. The shame is that most of them also don't know what "free market" technically means anymore.

> I'm still baffled why local and state govts aren't easing into a public option.

That's easy enough to answer: lobbying efforts by major insurance companies (and insurance company adjacent companies) prevented it. In many states such lobbying efforts prevented it entirely in the legislature adding direct laws and some state constitutional amendments that states explicitly weren't allowed to build a public option as a part of their healthcare exchanges. It was a big part of the uproar when the ACA was passed at the federal level, a big part of why many states' healthcare exchanges were sabotaged and broken on Day One, and a large part of why the ACA itself made too many compromises in how it established the state-driven healthcare exchanges.

> I'm still baffled why local and state govts aren't easing into a public option.

Because socialism is well known for unsustainable costs and poor service.

It can be problematic even as an option. Now doctors have a conflict of interest because they make more money from private insurances than within the public system. It also needs to be finely balanced otherwise too much of the spending is through private companies, starving the public system of funds.

It can work, but it needs to be very carefully regulated.

It's not "settled" not because it isnt true - Dube, Lester, Reich proved that conclusively that it is.

It's "debated" because raising the minimum wage hikes usually come out of profit margins: https://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

If there's one thing the business community and the econ think tanks it funds can all agree upon it's that any policy that involves sacrificing profits is Bad. Global warming denial and this both come from the same source.

I'll give you the economist as an acceptable source... but reasontv has a habit of omitting easy to access data that's detrimental to the argument they started with. While that lack of candor might not be disqualifying, it's dishonest when you also present yourself as a journalist.

Because among other things that would make the oligarchs sad and trigger massive capital flight. Whether the emotional and financial well-being of the richest 150-ish people on the planet should be a credible concern is TBD.

You missed the point with an overly simplistic take. They shouldn’t be (more) profitable by essentially having the government subsidize the wages of their employees. That means we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing their profits. I’m pro-capitalism, but not the type that requires tax dollars to maintain profitability and margins. If their only means of profitability is to pay non-living wages, I generally don’t want them in business because it creates an underclass as a means to profit.

(To add some nuance, I think it’s ok in some cases for short duration, like subsidizing new industries or those related to national emergencies, if it doesn’t become a long-term strategy. In general, those that pay extremely low wages are not part of those categories)

I guess a more pointed question is: do you think companies with a model that pays sub-standard wages should have their profits propped up by tax dollars? That's not my personal ideal of well-functioning capitalism.

Not true. The way you can stay in business is by socializing your costs. The more handouts and subsidies you can get from government, the longer you can stay in business despite the inefficiencies of your business.

Walmart and McDonald's are good examples of this.

Line 17, Schedule 1: "Self-employed health insurance deduction"

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi#en_US_2024_publink1...

"You may be able to deduct the amount you paid for health insurance (which includes medical, dental, and vision insurance and qualified long-term care insurance) for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. "

"One of the following statements must be true.

    You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C or F.

    You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment.

    You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE.

    You received wages in 2024 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2.

This is just historically inaccurate (and a regrettably common claim among older conservative-ish folk.

Those "minimum wage" jobs that you had a teenager in the 1950-1986 time period? They paid more than minimum wage does now, on an inflation adjusted basis. That $2/hr job in 1962 would be paying $21/hr if it had kept up with CPI.

That's the whole reason why adults started working in them.

Over time, federal minimum wage did not keep up even with national inflation rates, let alone regional cost of living changes. The result is that these employers, who were once forced to pay even their lowest level employees a living wage, can avoid paying even that.

> The real distortion is when you started having adults working in McDonalds. It was never a job to support a family - it was a minimum-wage job for kids

Nonsense: Fast-food chains never had a business model of closing during school hours! They remain open, and that shows each role has always required some adult employees with adult budgetary needs.

One can argue minimum-wage jobs are only for kids in school, or one can argue that a regular-businesses-hours company can have min-wage positions, but both together is incoherent.

> It's not better to have people have no jobs and require 100% assistance

It is actually. Former employees are free to learn new skills or do charity instead of being busy surviving a game they can’t win.

You are also subsidising an economically wasteful activity that cannot cover its own true costs - if fast food joint can’t pay a wage, it does not cover the negative externalities from extra traffic on the road, carbon emissions and people getting fat.

Business will be forced to innovate and invest in automation

> Now, the disagreement: is BigCo actually getting $10/hr of value out of those workers? Or is it $20/hr, or $50/hr, or $5/hr, or $2/hr?

I think this is the wrong question and it’s not our job to solve that.

Example - suppose I have a diamond mine, I can hire anyone with zero skill - homeless, drug addicts, criminals - pay them $5 an hour and they will dig up $1,000 of diamonds a day. What is the answer your own question - how much value is the business getting?

What we should consider instead is this - there is a certain cost for civilisation to continue. Workers must be born, educated, and then create the new generation. If they are not paid enough to continue the cycle, we will not let the country collapse, will we?

I as a taxpayer will end up picking up the tab in one way or another - whether it’s through food stamps, or in immigration or something else.

These jobs could be a total net loss once you account for carbon emissions and other externalities.

I would rather get these people to do charity work or plant trees instead.

Actually, they're called by a different name. Shareholders.

So, straightforwardly, you believe Walmart operates the stores it does, employees the people it does, and has the profit it does because of taxpayer subsidies. And you're happy to take on the cost of that welfare even if you don't shop at Walmart because Walmart is so inefficient that without state subsidies it would no longer operate or employee anyone. And you must protect Walmart from its own incompetence and distort the market so Walmart doesn't have to pay its true costs and so it can survive.

You probably don't think of yourself as a socialist but socialism is what you're wholeheartedly advocating for here.

And the welfare state you're supporting the worst kind of socialism: corporate handouts for privatized profits and socialized costs.