4 ms·

>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 wo

by 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
      >Wealthy people need to understand that the parts of their revenue that correspond to taxes that subsidize their employment practices The mistake you are making here is in thinking that the majority of people are employed by wealthy people. Tirades like yours make people believe this is just forcing billionaires to open up their wallets, but 99% of businesses are small businesses and they account for something like 49% of employment. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf So minimum wage increases tend to be more of an attack directly on the middle/lower class small business owners who are operating on thin margins. >Maybe I didn't substantiate it, but only because I thought it was well known. Don't pretend like you misunderstood the problem and use a faulty assumption to appeal to incredulity (still without providing evidence nonetheless!). The faulty assumption you built this demand argument on was that all of these businesses will easily absorb the wage increase and there will be no jobs lost. There will be no increase in demand and there may be a loss in demand if a huge chunk of small businesses layoff parts of their workforce or relocate.
      - youdontknowtho 10y ago
        Touche, debate captain. I wonder if the majority of small businesses are able to employ all those people because they force tax payers to subsidize their low wage payments. I guess the question then is whether it is best to have the lower classes struggling to survive on little wages while accruing more and more wealth to the top. Does this arrangement produce enough of a benefit to all involved to obviate the need to redistribute that accumulated wealth. I think that the accumulated wealth of the 1% needs to be redistributed. I think it's not only better for society, but its also more moral...and I get that I'm using slippery language unlike the "hard science" of economics. (I detest economics because it poses as a science while mainly serving to provide intellectual cover to the purveyors of the status quo.) So, yeah, I was being a dick. You caught me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
FussyZeus 10y ago
Except that overseas labor isn't going to be dirt-cheap forever. We can keep shifting manufacturing around to different developing countries but it's just kicking the can down the road and saying we'll deal with it later. Eventually Chinese workers and Malaysian workers and all the rest are going to start demanding real wages, and I don't think it's too far away now either. Maybe 20 more years we can keep playing this game but it's going to get harder and harder. Add to it we're running out of busywork to have people doing, costs of automation are plummeting, jobs that were initially thought by the majority of people to be safe from the robots are turning out to be not-so-safe, and the elite continue to live under the delusion that they can continue stockpiling wealth while the rest of us scrape by. There are a lot more poor people than rich people, and your money isn't going to help much when they're breaking down your door with torches and pitchforks.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  They already are, for example there's been several stories over the years of China losing jobs to Vietnam.
  - BatFastard 10y ago
    Its always a race to the bottom for costs. What no one talks about is the trail of bodies that are left behind.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      A little hyperbolic, but more true than not. The main thing is we're going to reach a critical mass point where the costs of continuing to cut costs are going to become more expensive than what the cost cutting does to the end products.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  Existence of cheap labor negatively impacts the investments into robotics. Disappearance of cheap labor makes some numbers (total addressable market, costs per unit produced) look very attractive.

by hueving 10y ago

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
    >Wealthy people need to understand that the parts of their revenue that correspond to taxes that subsidize their employment practices The mistake you are making here is in thinking that the majority of people are employed by wealthy people. Tirades like yours make people believe this is just forcing billionaires to open up their wallets, but 99% of businesses are small businesses and they account for something like 49% of employment. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf So minimum wage increases tend to be more of an attack directly on the middle/lower class small business owners who are operating on thin margins. >Maybe I didn't substantiate it, but only because I thought it was well known. Don't pretend like you misunderstood the problem and use a faulty assumption to appeal to incredulity (still without providing evidence nonetheless!). The faulty assumption you built this demand argument on was that all of these businesses will easily absorb the wage increase and there will be no jobs lost. There will be no increase in demand and there may be a loss in demand if a huge chunk of small businesses layoff parts of their workforce or relocate.
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      Touche, debate captain. I wonder if the majority of small businesses are able to employ all those people because they force tax payers to subsidize their low wage payments. I guess the question then is whether it is best to have the lower classes struggling to survive on little wages while accruing more and more wealth to the top. Does this arrangement produce enough of a benefit to all involved to obviate the need to redistribute that accumulated wealth. I think that the accumulated wealth of the 1% needs to be redistributed. I think it's not only better for society, but its also more moral...and I get that I'm using slippery language unlike the "hard science" of economics. (I detest economics because it poses as a science while mainly serving to provide intellectual cover to the purveyors of the status quo.) So, yeah, I was being a dick. You caught me.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

FussyZeus 10y ago

Except that overseas labor isn't going to be dirt-cheap forever. We can keep shifting manufacturing around to different developing countries but it's just kicking the can down the road and saying we'll deal with it later. Eventually Chinese workers and Malaysian workers and all the rest are going to start demanding real wages, and I don't think it's too far away now either. Maybe 20 more years we can keep playing this game but it's going to get harder and harder. Add to it we're running out of busywork to have people doing, costs of automation are plummeting, jobs that were initially thought by the majority of people to be safe from the robots are turning out to be not-so-safe, and the elite continue to live under the delusion that they can continue stockpiling wealth while the rest of us scrape by. There are a lot more poor people than rich people, and your money isn't going to help much when they're breaking down your door with torches and pitchforks.

mattmanser 10y ago
They already are, for example there's been several stories over the years of China losing jobs to Vietnam.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  Its always a race to the bottom for costs. What no one talks about is the trail of bodies that are left behind.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    A little hyperbolic, but more true than not. The main thing is we're going to reach a critical mass point where the costs of continuing to cut costs are going to become more expensive than what the cost cutting does to the end products.
prostoalex 10y ago
Existence of cheap labor negatively impacts the investments into robotics. Disappearance of cheap labor makes some numbers (total addressable market, costs per unit produced) look very attractive.