9 ms·

The wealthy elite will need to get this through their heads. They must start paying people more. There isn't a choice. Businesses are sitting on trillions of do

The wealthy elite will need to get this through their heads. They must start paying people more. There isn't a choice. Businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars that haven't been used to "create jobs". EDIT: Jesus. I apologize for making an economic sounding argument for this. I've taken it out. How's this...the wealthy elites need to pay people more for the sake of the stability of the social fabric. Find some economic rational for that if you like. (That's what economists really do anyway...Provide the theoretical underpinnings for the operation of their class.) They need to understand that having slightly smaller profit margins will be good for them as well, in the long run, due to a more stable republic. I understand that, as libertarians, you guys don't think that government can play a part in that. I do. We have a fundamental disagreement about that. Propitiation follows: I know that all of you guys are very economically literate libertarians. I should never have fronted like I was anywhere in your league. I could tell you were not only attractive but powerful and noble as soon as you came in the room. Your ability to recite the economics that you picked up at Uni is not only impressive but frightening. Surely, your might and prowess will be known through the ages.

JanezStupar 10y ago
And some people need to realize that not every business is sitting on a massive pile of cash. In fact most of our livelihoods comes from the long tail that is going to be wiped out if one ever tries to go after the "rich ones hoarding trillions".
hueving 10y ago
>The added demand from paying higher wages to people at the bottom The business that will pick up the slack in this example is one overseas. These employees would lose their job and would be unemployed, not increasing demand with higher wages. Unless you are hoping trump enacts some seriously strict trade tariffs, it's pretty stupid to believe that every business hit with this raise will survive with the same number of employees due to increased demand.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  Downvoting just because you disagree with something isn't how this site is supposed to work. My point is that this business is a bad business if it can only exist because the state subsidizes its employees with social programs. Eventually demand will pickup because of the wealth transferred to the lower economic class.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Downvoting Don't discuss downvoting in a response to someone. It doesn't make for good discussions. Especially since you're likely not replying to the person who downvoted. >My point is that this business is a bad business if it can only exist because the state subsidizes its employees with social programs. Then why couldn't you articulate that in the first comment? It was just a tirade against the wealthy elite mixed in with unsubstantiated claims of increased demand that fail to take into account that the wage increase isn't global.
    - grzm 10y ago
      you can't downvote something you've responded to I don't believe this is the case. However, you can't downvote a response to your own comment. Edit to add: To confirm, I still have a downvote arrow available to me on your comment.
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      I did want to express the part that you call a tirade. Wealthy people need to understand that the parts of their revenue that correspond to taxes that subsidize their employment practices are going to need to be paid as wages. Its at the root of the unfair practices that have created inequality, and it's corrosive to democracy. I think that the idea that paying people more, who spend more of their income proportionally, increases demand isn't really unsubstantiated. Maybe I didn't substantiate it, but only because I thought it was well known. Apologies for that.
      - hueving 10y ago
imaginenore 10y ago
No, they don't have to, if cheaper labor is available. And it is available. And no, other businesses won't replace them in CA, because their production costs are higher the moment they start the production. It's basic economics. And then there are robots.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  That's one way to look at it. There are examples, though, of states with higher minimum wages out performing neighboring states with lower wages. Businesses like this can only operate because taxes are used to subsidize their employee's lack of a living wage.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    It doesn't make sense to demand businesses give money away any more than it makes sense to demand that random people do. Do you want me to give away most of my income too because some people are poorer than me? Are you setting an example of that yourself? If you aren't proposing that businesses give away free money, are you instead saying that the government should reduce what it gives away in social welfare for low-wage workers? That could make low wage jobs unworkable if workers can't afford to actually commute to work or live nearby. That would in turn force wages up.
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      Actually, yes. Yes I do. And yes, I actually do. I don't take income tax deductions for charity payments, even if they are available, and I don't look for creative ways of lowering my tax bills. I think that I, and people like me, should pay more --proportionally -- to lower levels of inequality before it rips the republic apart. The wealthy actually have the best of all worlds currently. Lower taxes and high government expenditures mean that the government actually has to borrow the money from them to subsidize those low wages. Instead of just taxing them, the government now owes interest. I think that the wealthy have begun to believe their own bullshit and it's dangerous. Democracy should be used to fix the situation before it becomes worse.
VLM 10y ago
How can a business fail if by definition its sitting on piles of cash? We live in a centrally controlled command economy and all the politicians in charge of selecting winners and losers (except one widely hated guy at the top) were purchased by those very same businesses, so why are you proposing that mutually beneficial system break down? What would work would be a nice infusion of inflation. You can spend $X today on Y of labor or Z of capex, or hoard it until next year when the same $X will only buy (0.95)Y of labor or (0.95)Y of capex "stuff", your choice how much "stuff" you want to get for your $X
- AJ007 10y ago
  Businesses may be sitting on trillions of dollars of assets, but they also have trillions of dollars of liabilities. Outside of tech, at least in the US, most industries have fairly ugly balance sheets. Inflation is another debate. Traditionally wages rise later rather than sooner in that environment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fil_a_del_fee_a 10y ago
Not every business owner is an elite. This makes starting a business very difficult because now you have to pay minimum wage AND healthcare.
- chriskanan 10y ago
  Why don't small businesses lobby for universal healthcare then? I understand the historical reasons, but the idea of healthcare being tied to employment as the best solution we can come up with is kind of baffling. It is a huge obstacle to small businesses.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    This is mandated by law. The businesses have fought tooth and nail against ACA employer mandate. And yet as of today in the United States an employer of 50 or more has to either separate business operations into two distinct units or buy employer-linked insurance. https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate
    - muzz 10y ago
      That's not what the question that GP was asking. It was asking about universal health coverage, not employer mandate. GP was wondering why the employer is involved in health insurance in the first place.
      - prostoalex 10y ago
        > why the employer is involved in health insurance in the first place I am not sure how it was a different question. The government mandates they become involved.
        muzz 10y ago
        For most businesses this is not the case

JanezStupar 10y ago

And some people need to realize that not every business is sitting on a massive pile of cash. In fact most of our livelihoods comes from the long tail that is going to be wiped out if one ever tries to go after the "rich ones hoarding trillions".

hueving 10y ago

>The added demand from paying higher wages to people at the bottom The business that will pick up the slack in this example is one overseas. These employees would lose their job and would be unemployed, not increasing demand with higher wages. Unless you are hoping trump enacts some seriously strict trade tariffs, it's pretty stupid to believe that every business hit with this raise will survive with the same number of employees due to increased demand.

youdontknowtho 10y ago
Downvoting just because you disagree with something isn't how this site is supposed to work. My point is that this business is a bad business if it can only exist because the state subsidizes its employees with social programs. Eventually demand will pickup because of the wealth transferred to the lower economic class.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Downvoting Don't discuss downvoting in a response to someone. It doesn't make for good discussions. Especially since you're likely not replying to the person who downvoted. >My point is that this business is a bad business if it can only exist because the state subsidizes its employees with social programs. Then why couldn't you articulate that in the first comment? It was just a tirade against the wealthy elite mixed in with unsubstantiated claims of increased demand that fail to take into account that the wage increase isn't global.
  - grzm 10y ago
    you can't downvote something you've responded to I don't believe this is the case. However, you can't downvote a response to your own comment. Edit to add: To confirm, I still have a downvote arrow available to me on your comment.
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    I did want to express the part that you call a tirade. Wealthy people need to understand that the parts of their revenue that correspond to taxes that subsidize their employment practices are going to need to be paid as wages. Its at the root of the unfair practices that have created inequality, and it's corrosive to democracy. I think that the idea that paying people more, who spend more of their income proportionally, increases demand isn't really unsubstantiated. Maybe I didn't substantiate it, but only because I thought it was well known. Apologies for that.
    - hueving 10y ago

imaginenore 10y ago

No, they don't have to, if cheaper labor is available. And it is available. And no, other businesses won't replace them in CA, because their production costs are higher the moment they start the production. It's basic economics. And then there are robots.

youdontknowtho 10y ago
That's one way to look at it. There are examples, though, of states with higher minimum wages out performing neighboring states with lower wages. Businesses like this can only operate because taxes are used to subsidize their employee's lack of a living wage.
- Hondor 10y ago
  It doesn't make sense to demand businesses give money away any more than it makes sense to demand that random people do. Do you want me to give away most of my income too because some people are poorer than me? Are you setting an example of that yourself? If you aren't proposing that businesses give away free money, are you instead saying that the government should reduce what it gives away in social welfare for low-wage workers? That could make low wage jobs unworkable if workers can't afford to actually commute to work or live nearby. That would in turn force wages up.
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    Actually, yes. Yes I do. And yes, I actually do. I don't take income tax deductions for charity payments, even if they are available, and I don't look for creative ways of lowering my tax bills. I think that I, and people like me, should pay more --proportionally -- to lower levels of inequality before it rips the republic apart. The wealthy actually have the best of all worlds currently. Lower taxes and high government expenditures mean that the government actually has to borrow the money from them to subsidize those low wages. Instead of just taxing them, the government now owes interest. I think that the wealthy have begun to believe their own bullshit and it's dangerous. Democracy should be used to fix the situation before it becomes worse.

VLM 10y ago

How can a business fail if by definition its sitting on piles of cash? We live in a centrally controlled command economy and all the politicians in charge of selecting winners and losers (except one widely hated guy at the top) were purchased by those very same businesses, so why are you proposing that mutually beneficial system break down? What would work would be a nice infusion of inflation. You can spend $X today on Y of labor or Z of capex, or hoard it until next year when the same $X will only buy (0.95)Y of labor or (0.95)Y of capex "stuff", your choice how much "stuff" you want to get for your $X

AJ007 10y ago
Businesses may be sitting on trillions of dollars of assets, but they also have trillions of dollars of liabilities. Outside of tech, at least in the US, most industries have fairly ugly balance sheets. Inflation is another debate. Traditionally wages rise later rather than sooner in that environment.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fil_a_del_fee_a 10y ago

Not every business owner is an elite. This makes starting a business very difficult because now you have to pay minimum wage AND healthcare.

chriskanan 10y ago
Why don't small businesses lobby for universal healthcare then? I understand the historical reasons, but the idea of healthcare being tied to employment as the best solution we can come up with is kind of baffling. It is a huge obstacle to small businesses.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  This is mandated by law. The businesses have fought tooth and nail against ACA employer mandate. And yet as of today in the United States an employer of 50 or more has to either separate business operations into two distinct units or buy employer-linked insurance. https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate
  - muzz 10y ago
    That's not what the question that GP was asking. It was asking about universal health coverage, not employer mandate. GP was wondering why the employer is involved in health insurance in the first place.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      > why the employer is involved in health insurance in the first place I am not sure how it was a different question. The government mandates they become involved.
      - muzz 10y ago
        For most businesses this is not the case