Skip to main content

View Diary: Economy: Why Do We Have Financial Incentives *Against* Entrepeneurship? (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Might Depend on the Entrepreneur (7+ / 0-)

    I'm a sole proprietor craft person.

    Like virtually every self employed individual in services, crafts and the arts, I have a spouse who provides my health care. She could not join the business until she got old enough to retire with a small gov't pension that had health insurance, because of for-profit health insurance.

    You have an excellent point for mid and upper level entrepreneurs who can step into enterprises that return middle class incomes to them right off the bat.

    As a liberal business person I expect to hope to pay a higher price for societies' services when I start doing well. But because the bottom end of this activity extends well down into the lower classes, there seems to be an argument for support and incentives in an economy which increasingly wants all its employees to be instantly disposable.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:06:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The answer to your stated problem is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cos, grrr

      univeral healthcare (preferrably single payer).  Not only would it free the entrepreneur, but it make all U.S. business enterprises more competitive in comparison to their foreign competitors.  It would also free those who remain on a job that they hate because they may not be eligible for the group policy of a new employer.  Portable pensions would also be a big help in that regard.

      "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

      by lordcopper on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:10:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  universal *non-employer* health care (4+ / 0-)

        I agree that this is the solution, but the key point here is not merely that the system be "universal" but that it not rely on employer-sponsored health care.  

        For example, in Massachusetts we have a near-universal system currently, but it only partly solves the problem, because it still relies too much on employer-sponsored coverage for people who can get it.  Under 300% of poverty you don't face a prospect of long-term loss of coverage, so it is certainly a lot better than the rest of the country.  But single-payer would be a much better solution, because then your health care would remain as-is no matter what your state of employment.

        One thing we need to re-design our economy for is fluid "employment" - people constantly flitting from project to project, job to job, with excursions in between.  The easier we make it for people to do that smoothly, the greater an engine for innovation and growth we'll get as a result.  We need to focus on reducing the friction that intimidates, delays, or deters people from new pursuits.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site