3 ms·
> Something valued at I mean, good point, almost a great point, except, by whom? There are other forms of value than money. You're right that it's unlikely th
by RangerScience 8y ago
> Something valued at
I mean, good point, almost a great point, except, by whom? There are other forms of value than money.
You're right that it's unlikely they've made up the overall reduction in wages by doing something else and why, but you're missing what I'm trying to point out.
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoI gather your point is that the employee gets the value rather than the rest of society. But that's just the broken window fallacy. Most companies' margins are small. More than 90% of the value typically goes to someone else -- customers, other employees, suppliers (and their employees), etc. Even the business owners for a lot of small businesses are only scraping by. There is no guarantee that 0.75X value can outweigh 1.25X value just by going to one person rather than another, and all the usual reasons to expect that it won't.
- RangerScience 8y agoOh hmm, no, that's not my point. My point is that unless the study also looked into what the people with fewer hours then did with the now-free hours, we all have insufficient information with which to make a good/bad judgement call on it. I don't follow your utilitarian math. Can you rephrase? > that the employee gets the value rather than the rest of society. I don't think drawing this line is reasonable. The employee is part of society, trying to reason from a starting point of separating them from it just seems silly. As far as I understand your argument, I definitely do not agree that it's a broken window fallacy. In your view, what is the broken window in this case? (Not the fallacy, the thing that would be the literal broken window).