« Citizens' Income: something for nothing? | Main | Barclays and the base rate fallacy »

March 19, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This sort of "chained marginal" argument doesn't look like a general equilibrium one to me - you're ignoring the benefit of having better and more productive workers in those jobs.

Luis Enrique

but D2, how would taking into account the benefit of having more productive workers in those jobs change any of the points in this post?

Mark Wadsworth

S&T, you have answered your own question with your previous post advocating a Citizen's Income. Wouldn't it be nice if people could keep their entire benefit entitlement plus two thirds of their gross wages?


I would argue in favour of ending the minimum wage differential. After all, why should someone not get the same rate of pay as their colleagues simply because they are younger?

Luis Enrique

"After all, why should someone not get the same rate of pay as their colleagues simply because they are younger?"

Erm ... if doing so leads to "lower education, worse prospects for the worse off" perhaps?


VS is correct. While private individuals should be free to discriminate on any basis, the government should treat each citizen equally.

That's why, as much as I hate wealth redistribution, a CBI is preferable to our current welfare system.


Luis, but i am not convinced it does lead to lower education and worse prospects for the worse-off. After all, those of the worst-off who are under 22 are earning more.

Additionally, even if some leave school early because of higher wages, that doesn't mean they won't go back into education later on. In fact, some time in the labour force may convince some people who weren't keen on certain subjects at school that learning about (say) computers or engineering has a good workplace use.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad