Comment: regarding the unemployment numbers

(See in situ)


regarding the unemployment numbers

regarding the unemployment numbers, I'd expect much of it has to do with the degree of services those collected taxes are then being redistributed to non-workers in New England vs. in Wyoming.

When a progressive state collects these higher taxes and provides services that improves the quality of life of non-workers; they have doubly incentivized workers to shift to non-work.

I remember reading an analysis on mises.org or from LewRockwell.com that had calculated all the possible benefits a parent of two could qualify for at each income level. The X axis started at $0 earned and moving up to 6 figure salaries. The Y axis graphed their total compensation if they maxed out every gov't program they could qualify for; so it was money earned + gov't aid totaled together.

Starting at about $45,000 the graph had an increasing slope (more total compensation for more earned income), but below $45K the graph was all messed up, with signifant brackets where more work lead to a poorer family.

A person might be earning $19K and qualify for $15K in aid. But hit $20K and they lose out in $5K if gov't dollars thus their standard of living goes down unless they can work enough hours to get their salary up to $25K. There was also a significant advantage for some people making 20-something thousand to stop working b/c they were about even with people not working at all.

So many less skilled laborers are being discouraged from hard work b/c unless they reach that $45K threshold their work would often cause their kids to have a lower standard of living.