It would be fair to apply a downward adjustment before converting into an externality. At the same time, a worker’s salary is only a portion of their productivity, the correlation between productivity and wages may not be particularly strong, and some of the costs nominally borne by the worker end up being borne by society (via lost tax revenue, increased demand on need-based social service programs, etc.)
(As an aside, the article is paywalled, but I’d need more convincing on the $220B figure. I quickly saw a study in the Netherlands that suggested a cost there of 2.56 billion euros [or roughly 60 billion if you scaled to the size of the US economy]. Not suggesting that is the right figure either, but this strikes me as a case in which the methodological assumptions could make a big difference.).
via lost tax revenue, increased demand on need-based social service programs, etc.
I am skeptical of this style of argument, because it seems like it allows a sort of illiberal rhetorical transmutation. A government can take some private aspect of life that it does not have the right to regulate, subsidize part of it, and then claim that those who behave in undesired ways are ‘demanding’ social assistance, negatively affecting the taxpayer, and hence can be regulated.
It would be fair to apply a downward adjustment before converting into an externality. At the same time, a worker’s salary is only a portion of their productivity, the correlation between productivity and wages may not be particularly strong, and some of the costs nominally borne by the worker end up being borne by society (via lost tax revenue, increased demand on need-based social service programs, etc.)
(As an aside, the article is paywalled, but I’d need more convincing on the $220B figure. I quickly saw a study in the Netherlands that suggested a cost there of 2.56 billion euros [or roughly 60 billion if you scaled to the size of the US economy]. Not suggesting that is the right figure either, but this strikes me as a case in which the methodological assumptions could make a big difference.).
I am skeptical of this style of argument, because it seems like it allows a sort of illiberal rhetorical transmutation. A government can take some private aspect of life that it does not have the right to regulate, subsidize part of it, and then claim that those who behave in undesired ways are ‘demanding’ social assistance, negatively affecting the taxpayer, and hence can be regulated.