• BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    IIRC, the price cap on labor was to reduce workers from getting drawn to other companies that were paying higher wages. The idea was to make production predictable by keeping the limited labor force in place rather than having them be mobile. It led to the rise of benefits, like health insurance, being offered as part of total compensation packages since the extras weren’t capped. Effectively this was the start of insurance being tied to employment.

    Law of unintended consequences hit us in a big way with this one.

    • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      And all of those policies were in the middle of a global war so I’m assuming wartime and peacetime economics is a little bit different.

    • Alkali@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In turn, insurance being tied to healthcare is the main reason why US citizens associate government funded health care with freeloaders. Essentially, at one point it meant you were not working in a society that greatly needed workers. I mean, there was also underline racism in only certain groups being selected for said jobs, but that’s an American standard.