🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Blair wrote:
> 
> >> "Jim Blair" <jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:ak0cau$ka7$1@news.doit.wisc.edu.
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > ??? As ever fewer people have been able to make ever more (and better)
> >> > goods because of higher productuvity, the fraction of the population
> >> > employed has increased, and family incomes have increased to their highest
> >> > levels ever.
> 
> >Mark Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> That makes no sense at all.  "...fewer people making goods means more people
> >> are employed."
> 
> Peter Lawrence <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, you've read in the "means more". While what he is driving at is not
> >actually what is happening (everywhere), it is consistent to have both more
> >employment and more productivity - IF there is vastly more output.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> And I was not generalizing  about "everywhere", just about the USA.

A couple of points here.

The behaviour in question is flowing over national boundaries, so you only 
get a full description by looking around.

And when postings are going on a WORLD wide web (half the newsgroups getting 
this are non-US), whatever your personal intentions, if you don't make that 
explicit you are not getting your message across very well. By now I know 
where you are coming from - but you should make your specifics less implicit 
if you want to avoid confusion.

> And yes, there has been vastly more output..
.
.
> >Mark Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see how a higher fraction of the population can be employed.
> 
> ??? You mean that you recognize the fact that they are, but don't
> understand WHY?
> 
> Or do you mean that you didn't know that they are?
> 
> Look at the figures for "employment rate" (labor force participation rate)
> from 1960 to 2000.
> 
> >
> >Well, not with the present framework. But there are ways (see my material
> >linked via my signature below). PML.
> >
> 
> Talking about Australia again?

No. If you DO look at that material, which was written for an Australian 
audience, you will find Australian examples and illustrations. However the 
whole thing has also been brought out in a British context by Professor Kim 
Swales of the University of Strathclyde. In a model using the British 
equivalent of GST, VAT, Professor Swales found that an NPT set at 5% of 
average UK wages would lead to serious improvements in both employment and 
GDP, under a number of varying assumptions. You can find his material within 
http://www.faxfn.org at 
http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/right/issue_03/jobs_tax.htm#23feb98a. I 
analysed this using Game Theory (see the link in my signature below).

As there is not currently a suitable carrying tax in the USA, that does not 
give you a prescription, just food for thought. However other carrying taxes 
are possible (and actually GST is a pretty bad one), and the analysis I did 
NOT put up shows how the same things work out in developing countries, both 
past and present. Oddly, the assistance the poor got from things like 
commoners' privileges worked out like a "Universal Basic Income" set too low 
to survive off in isolation. That is the key aspect; the Australian Greens 
are advocating a "Guaranteed Adequate Income", when what would actually work 
(long term) is a "Guaranteed INadequate Income". And Negative Income Tax 
approaches, including your own EITC in the USA, also come in the same body of 
policy.

That only describes end results, not transitions. The NPT approach minimises 
transitional problems and funding problems.

  Didn't "Women's Lib" reach down-under yet?

Where did that come from? What has feminism got to do with these issues? Am I 
missing something? PML.

-- 
GST+NPT=JOBS

I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production 
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment. 

See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other 
items on that page for some reasons why.