zlacker

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

Nothing I said suggested otherwise.

>>jjnoak+(OP)
> 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+(OP)
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+(OP)
> 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.