I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure this just out prices small businesses. Bigger businesses can take the strain and get some great PR.
I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure this just out prices small businesses. Bigger businesses can take the strain and get some great PR.
I've always found it interesting that the plague was one of the major drivers of the elimination of serfdom in western Europe. When half the population died, workers suddenly found themselves in high demand. They were able to demand better working conditions and dramatically higher wages. [1]
I'm hoping for a softer version of this in high unemployment payments.
Personally, I'm ok with business who can't afford to pay employees a living wage going under and being replaced by ones that are willing to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Deat...
I think what many businesses of all sizes often forget is that you get back what you give, usually as a multiple. Further, this increased return is often overlooked or ignored since its not immediately measurable until the action (increasing employees' pay) is taken. The flip side being, an increase in wages is an immediately determinable cost and so becomes the initial focus.
However, I don't like the process. You can't just let the Fed/government follow a strategy because that strategy does not fulfill its stated goals which results in doubling down on the strategy. Increasing the money supply is only excusable if you do so to hit your 2% inflation mandate. The Fed needs more precise tools so that it can actually do its job without collateral damage.
Relying on the government to send economic stimulus only works when the government actually thinks that the economy is in big trouble. It's a good fail safe but it doesn't help when your economy is limping at a low growth and inflation rate for a decade. It's easy to shoot down a infrastructure bill if the only reason it exists is to add 0.5% inflation from 1.5% so that you hit 2%.