zlacker

Economics isn't a zero-sum game. People with better jobs spend more money to buy more products, including a lot of the products startups would very much like to sell. An ex-con working minimum wage isn't ordering Muchery, using Instacart, or taking Lyft rides. An ex-con working in frontend development very well might use those services.

This generates economic activity across the entire chain, enriching everyone along the way. All of these people end up paying more taxes. Collectively the increase in activity can cause retailers, suppliers, and manufacturers to hire to keep up with demand further feeding the cycle.

IIRC the research shows ex-cons are far less likely to re-offend in the future if they land a good job. How many kids looking forward to $130k/yr jobs would choose to join a gang instead?

There's also the deadweight loss of criminal prosecution and jailing offenders. It generates a few legal and prison guard jobs but most of the taxes spent in the criminal justice system don't contribute constructively to society the same way building new bridges, subway systems, or funding science research does.

>>xenadu+(OP)
> Economics isn't a zero-sum game. People with better jobs spend more money to buy more products

Nothing I said suggested otherwise.

>>jjnoak+t2
> the overall earning that the set number of jobs would support wouldn't change

Claiming that there is a set number of jobs and the overall earning wouldn't change with more productive labor is suggesting a zero-sum game.

>>jjnoak+t2
Well, sort of. You said "the jobs are being done by someone else", but that's not quite true - that person having to do that job means they can't do another job, etc. I think your argument only makes sense if there's a large pool of low-skilled workers looking for jobs with clean backgrounds (which might be true, but possibly isn't in that area/job area).

Here are some examples:

1. A former felon is unable to work a low paying job at a library, because they have a background check. Someone else takes that job - but only if they couldn't find a higher paying job. In this case tax revenue doesn't change.

2. A former felon has a unique skill (e.g. manufacturing specialty welding machines), that it is impossible to find someone to replace. That business opportunity goes by, and in this case tax revenue decreases.

>>jjnoak+t2
> 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.

That's exactly what "zero sum" means.

>>xenadu+(OP)
> How many kids looking forward to $130k/yr jobs would choose to join a gang instead?

I agree with the your overall comment, but this part is setting up unrealistic expectations. You should be asking "How many kids looking forward to $30k/yr jobs ..."

Median salary across the US is about $30k, or up to $50-70k (with corresponding cost of living) in a few rich cities. Anything above that is a good-paying job for most of the population, criminal record or not.