Conservatives have been saying for years that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. One of the great criticisms of the war on poverty is that by subsidizing single motherhood, the government has encouraged more children to be born out of wedlock. The numbers back that claim up.
Even liberals recognize this when it’s convenient for them. Subsidize solar energy for instance, and you’ll entice more firms to line up for a government check.
And even ISIS is aware that people respond to incentives apparently. In a disturbing but hardly surprising report, Fox News documents how the ISIS pay scale is determined:Fighting for the cash-strapped Islamic State doesn’t pay very well, but terrorists can boost their monthly salaries if they have wives, kids and sex slaves, according to terror documents uncovered Friday.
A wage voucher showed that one worker, identified only as al-Jiburi, received a base salary of just $50 a month, but got $50 bonuses for each of his two wives and another $35 for each of his six children, the Washington Post reports. His monthly haul came to $360, but the document also said any sex slave would entitle him to $50 more per month.
After baiting the rest of the world into war with them, ISIS is realizing they have a finite amount of soldiers. There’s only two ways they can solve that problem: by recruitment, and by birthing more so-called “Cubs of the Caliphate.”“The documentary evidence confirms the current coalition approach has brought about significant losses for the Islamic State and put it under pressure on multiple fronts,” Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, a British scholar who obtained the papers, wrote in the CTC Journal, which is published by the Combating Terrorism Center in New York.
Al-Tamimi added that the documents do not reflect bonuses paid to fighters on the front lines, but five months ago, ISIS announced a 50-percent pay cut for its militants. The U.S-led coalition has left a severe dent in the terror group’s finances, ISIS leaders say.ISIS is strapped for cash, and still hemorrhaging money in an attempt to sustain themselves. Who knows – liberal economics may be the death of them yet.
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]