36 ms·
> Having some employers go out of business isn't a bad thing. Tell that to the employees who rely on those jobs to pay rent. I'm sure they will have a hard tim
by geezerjay 8y ago
> Having some employers go out of business isn't a bad thing.
Tell that to the employees who rely on those jobs to pay rent. I'm sure they will have a hard time understanding how being forced out of a job is good because some guy online said it could increase someone else's salary.
> Just in San Jose alone there are over 60 Starbucks stores, plus all the other chains and independent shops. Closing a few won't have much impact.
I'm pretty sure the people depending on those shops to make a living would be affected by your blend of altruism.
- nradov 8y agoAltruism has nothing to do with it. Should we never allow businesses to fail, or how exactly would you propose to solve the problem? I do think we should increase unemployment insurance payments so that impacted workers have more time to find new jobs.
- geezerjay 8y ago> Altruism has nothing to do with it. Should we never allow businesses to fail, or how exactly would you propose to solve the problem? Your strawman doesn't have any relation with the issue being discussed. You original argument was that increasing production costs in a sector to a point that would bankrupt some employers and force their employees out of a job wouldn't be a bad thing if that meant other employees within the sector could get raises. We're not talking about protectionism. We're discussing the implications of your proposal and how it would affect workers within the sector by forcing them out of a job. Forcing those workers out of a job has a significant impact on their livelihood, and as it was already the best option they had then those who would have lost their job would not be better off in any way or form.
- nradov 8y agoYou haven't proposed any alternative. In labor intensive businesses, production costs always increase.