Tolentino
2023-07-04 13:02:53
- #1
In this specific case, because it would help the company as a whole and save or generate money elsewhere. The incentives do not necessarily have to cost tax money but could be a zero-sum game. A discount on the professional association contributions could make sense, for example, because there are fewer commuting accidents. Fewer commuters mean less strain on transport routes and infrastructure costs. Generally, higher satisfaction and more work-life balance as well as compatibility of family and career could lead to more productivity and lower absenteeism in the medium term. It is also conceivable that more people could be convinced to work longer under such conditions. Voluntarily – not because it is mandatory. This would, in turn, relieve the pension funds. Through the more even distribution of the population (living in rural areas becomes more attractive), more (small) businesses would settle there (supply and gastronomy), and then a snowball effect would occur, because more population and small businesses make such areas more attractive to companies whose professions require presence (craft businesses, etc.). From an economic perspective, one must not always think only from one's own forehead to the sidewalk in front of the door but must simulate the changes all the way through. Public investments can only be compared to business investments to a limited extent. The most extreme example is education. It takes 15-20 years for the investment to pay off, but anyone who is stingy there (as a state) has built their future on sand.