Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[Jester]

Actually, I believe the government's meddling actually harms our society.

Compared to what? A society with no government? Surely not. As Pete rightly says, the question is where government intervention ceases to be beneficial, and instead becomes meddling. The first dollars spent on defense, policing and laws are surely worth spending - societies without that are hellholes. The question is - where after that do you stop?

This may shock you. I've hired people at a wage higher than they've asked for, and I've given raises well above 15% when necessary. I believe a smart employer values their "human capital". When I've spent many years investing in the training of an employee, and find they are the perfect fit for an skill set that is hard to replace, then there is great incentive to reasonably "over pay" for that position. I've worked for manufacturing firms that pay their non-union labor at 150% of union scale.

Two possibilities.

1) You are a rational employer, paying "extra" to buy "extras" - a quality employee who will remain loyal. So you are in no sense paying higher wages than necessary, you are paying the wages necessary to secure the quality of employee you want, and prevent poaching.

2) You are a very strange kind of altruist, who specifically looks out for the interests of high-quality employees.

I know which one seems more reasonable to me.

So no. If taxes go down, wages do not go down. Employers calculate and compete at the gross wages level, and not take home pay. In the professions I deal with, wages are well over a "living wage", so any additional money is merely wealth that they have earned.

Again, you fixate on one side of the price equation, and not the other. Supply is one half - what the employer decides they want to pay. Demand is the other - what the employee is willing to work for. Employers are concerned about the gross pay, because that's what comes out of their pockets. But employees are concerned about the net pay, because that's what ends up in their bank account. A lower-tax environment means employees take home more of their paycheque. They should, therefore, be willing to accept less gross income to produce the same net income.

Now, if government and private business are exact substitutes, and people buy the exact same services they previously paid for with tax dollars, they're going to demand net income to match their new expenses, which should raise wages right back up to where they were.

The question is, then, is the government providing bargains, or not? That is a very difficult question. In some sectors, surely. In others, surely not. Where that balance lies, we'll need a lot of evidence to know.

-Jester