zlacker

>>RBBron+(OP)
State and federal governments do not get as much tax revenue either because these people are not earning at their full potential. So basically, it hurts everyone involved as well as society as a whole.

>>w8rbt+Ij
Is that true? I don't know much about macroeconomics but it seems to me that even though these folks aren't earning at their full potential, the jobs are being done by someone.

In other words, if these folks were earning more, someone else wouldn't be doing that job, so the overall earning that the set number of jobs would support wouldn't change one way or the other from the tax revenue point of view.

(Not advocating for or against these folks being able to work at their full potential, just trying to look at the tax revenue argument objectively).

>>jjnoak+km
This is fixed pie thinking and it's not a good way to look at the economy and jobs. If this large block of people were earning more, they would be spending more. That means more restaurant jobs, home builders, baby sitters, etc. It's not a perfect one to one that jobs will increase with spending, but it's closer to that than the fixed number of jobs view you are putting out.