This Time the Top 1% May Simply Decide Not to Work

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703932904574511833478785674.html?mod=djemITP#articleTabs%3Darticle

Clearly Noonan et al are correct that in this modern world, it doesn't really take that much of an income to live adequately (or remotely).

As a microcosm, here in Europe it's evident when talking to young people who don't see opportunities here and, if more motivated, they leave; if less motivated, they go on welfare.

It's also the connundrum for the average worker that is evident in every news article talking about the need for 'export' markets. Why export markets?

I'd argue that by government taking so much of a worker's productive net worth for social distribution, the employer is unable to fairly compensate the individual worker for their individual contribution to the productive enterprise. Thus, the worker who should be earning $1 (or with the employer $2, where the employer's dollar should be their as a resource for greater production or as a reward to capital and entrepreneurship), is left with perhaps 35 cents. Out of that 35 cents the worker then has to buy the production of other workers.

Of course, some of this production is bought by those receiving government benefits; but, not enough. Thus, the society is unable to afford its own production.

Part of this is wrapped up in the concept of 'economic utility' - but, that's an extended discussion.

The bottom line is the worker is deprived of the ability to purchase their own production - sort of the exact opposite of Henry Ford's original $5 a day wage where Ford workers could afford to buy a Ford car back about 1915. Today, they wouldn't be able to afford that car because Ford could only pay them $2 and the government would have happy retirees and welfare recipient's, etc. enjoying the other $3.