5 ms·

> One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make thi

> One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy. Does GDP matter if a large segment of the population is miserable? Samsung's ability to compete internationally is important but I'd rank that as a second to the health and happiness of it's populace. > higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing I don't quite buy this -- higher minimum wages might indeed increase costs for small shops, but this is a shallow assessment: - A clearer definition of "small shop" is needed -- most really small shops are run by the owner/owner's family, no? If this is not the case, then I'd argue that businesses that are dependent on not paying workers a living wage should not exist (if Korea's people wish it so). - Higher wages usually means more money spent on goods for all but the upper echelon of the population who may or may not be more interested in amassing wealth for whatever reason

zanny 7y ago
The only major conservative / anti-progressive argument on this topic I'd give credence to is that corporate power and influence and the resulting abuse of workers is a necessary evil to compete globally. That if you made your nation unto an island with 20 hour work weeks, 2 months paid vacation, a 20 dollar minimum wage (or UBI), public housing, public transit, etc that your economy would rot as capital went places where more exploitation means more profit overall. Not to say that is an inevitability or even a correct interpretation, but it does lean heavily on the argument that a healthy, educated, rational, and free populace can compete with the export yields of wage slaves overdosing on drugs even if they aren't compelled to do work nobody wants to do for a price nobody wants to take. The question is if people wanting things enough to drive an economy over them needing things. Historically almost all wealth was built on exploitations - of land, of resources, and of people. What if preventing the exploitation and suffering of your fellows causes everyone to suffer in the long term from economic stagnation? Its a dystopic way to look at the world but given the major economic powerhouses of this and recent eras I just don't see the evidence that its entirely wrong.
- hardwaresofton 7y ago
  > The only major conservative / anti-progressive argument on this topic I'd give credence to is that corporate power and influence and the resulting abuse of workers is a necessary evil to compete globally I disagree -- France does well in terms of GDP per hour worked[0], and is in relative terms a worker's paradise. On a more subjective note, I think this analysis misses the fact that automation is about to absolutely destroy the working class (if it's not already). The world's need for brute force blue-collar workers is shrinking and enabling people who might have done that work to aim for higher pursuits (which generally people only feel able to do when times are good) should be the goal of an economy with long term aspirations. There's a reason countries start with the economic zone model, but then seek to upskill their populace -- humans, no matter how little you pay them, cannot compete with efficient robots. > Not to say that is an inevitability or even a correct interpretation, but it does lean heavily on the argument that a healthy, educated, rational, and free populace can compete with the export yields of wage slaves overdosing on drugs even if they aren't compelled to do work nobody wants to do for a price nobody wants to take. The question is if people wanting things enough to drive an economy over them needing things. That argument doesn't seem to take into account that exports are varied and valued spectacularly diversely. Entertainment is one of America's largest exports and it is very much not a strictly productive endeavor to be entertained (of course you can argue that entertainment is required for productive work so people don't break down). Healthy, educated, rational, and free populaces are most of the time not competing with t-shirt producing sweat shops -- they are more often designing the t-shirts the sweat shops are making. In addition to this, functioning purely free-market economies basically don't exist anywhere. The idea of a sanction against countries that exploit their workers would be unheard for a strictly economics-focused mindset but is very much possible today. > Historically almost all wealth was built on exploitations - of land, of resources, and of people. What if preventing the exploitation and suffering of your fellows causes everyone to suffer in the long term from economic stagnation? Its a dystopic way to look at the world but given the major economic powerhouses of this and recent eras I just don't see the evidence that its entirely wrong. This is true, but it's a spectrum -- in my opinion, aggressive exploitation simply speeds up growth, it is not necessarily a gating factor. I agree in that I think it's not necessarily wrong but still, if it's a spectrum then why don't we turn the dial back a little bit? There are externalized costs that we're ignoring by normalizing exploitation. Also this constant worry of "economic stagnation" -- this is missing the forest for the trees again, it's worrying about GDP over the wellness of the people of a nation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked#Countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
manigandham 7y ago
There's no such thing as a "living wage". It's a political talking point and you can set the line wherever you want. Higher min. wage increases costs and disproportionately affects smaller companies, leading to closures in every region, country, state and city where it happens. This is also why giant corporations like Walmart even support it since it clears out small local store competition.
- azernik 7y ago
  It disproportionately affects low-margin, low-productivity companies, not smaller ones.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Those are usually the smaller ones, like restaurants and corner stores run by a single family.
- hardwaresofton 7y ago
  > There's no such thing as a "living wage". It's a political talking point and you can set the line wherever you want. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- it's just a social construct, and a useful one depending on where your priorities lie. The salient point is that some societies value this concept and draw the line somewhere. If you believe governmental regulation exists to protect the people (at least a little bit), putting a lower bound on what companies are allowed to pay employees in your country/governed region is important. > Higher min. wage increases costs and disproportionately affects smaller companies, leading to closures in every region, country, state and city where it happens. This is also why giant corporations like Walmart even support it since it clears out small local store competition. this is basically the same point rehashed -- I can't say that I added too many facts, but simply implying that min. wage increases hurt small business without discussing the increase in goods purchased is a shallow assessment. When workers who are likely to spend money receive more money in terms of wages, they spend these wages -- this should mean smaller companies will see higher sales as well as big companies. And again, what the economy is doing aside, if you cannot afford to pay a wage that enables your employees to comfortably live, you likely should not exist, find another business. Businesses that attempt to operate in this space are externalizing their costs to society at large -- people who work at these companies depend on social programs that are paid for the society at large.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
> Does GDP matter if a large segment of the population is miserable? Samsung's ability to compete internationally is important but I'd rank that as a second to the health and happiness of it's populace. GDP is what enables society to provide health and happiness to its populace. The problem with Bangladesh, for example, is not income distribution. It's top-line GDP. In Korea, according to the OECD, average household disposable income is $21,000 per year, versus $45,000 per year for the United States: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states. Korea isn't so rich that more even distribution of income without top line GDP growth would be a panacea. (And it's also worth pointing out that measures to distribute income more evenly will generally reduce GDP.)

zanny 7y ago

The only major conservative / anti-progressive argument on this topic I'd give credence to is that corporate power and influence and the resulting abuse of workers is a necessary evil to compete globally. That if you made your nation unto an island with 20 hour work weeks, 2 months paid vacation, a 20 dollar minimum wage (or UBI), public housing, public transit, etc that your economy would rot as capital went places where more exploitation means more profit overall. Not to say that is an inevitability or even a correct interpretation, but it does lean heavily on the argument that a healthy, educated, rational, and free populace can compete with the export yields of wage slaves overdosing on drugs even if they aren't compelled to do work nobody wants to do for a price nobody wants to take. The question is if people wanting things enough to drive an economy over them needing things. Historically almost all wealth was built on exploitations - of land, of resources, and of people. What if preventing the exploitation and suffering of your fellows causes everyone to suffer in the long term from economic stagnation? Its a dystopic way to look at the world but given the major economic powerhouses of this and recent eras I just don't see the evidence that its entirely wrong.

hardwaresofton 7y ago
> The only major conservative / anti-progressive argument on this topic I'd give credence to is that corporate power and influence and the resulting abuse of workers is a necessary evil to compete globally I disagree -- France does well in terms of GDP per hour worked[0], and is in relative terms a worker's paradise. On a more subjective note, I think this analysis misses the fact that automation is about to absolutely destroy the working class (if it's not already). The world's need for brute force blue-collar workers is shrinking and enabling people who might have done that work to aim for higher pursuits (which generally people only feel able to do when times are good) should be the goal of an economy with long term aspirations. There's a reason countries start with the economic zone model, but then seek to upskill their populace -- humans, no matter how little you pay them, cannot compete with efficient robots. > Not to say that is an inevitability or even a correct interpretation, but it does lean heavily on the argument that a healthy, educated, rational, and free populace can compete with the export yields of wage slaves overdosing on drugs even if they aren't compelled to do work nobody wants to do for a price nobody wants to take. The question is if people wanting things enough to drive an economy over them needing things. That argument doesn't seem to take into account that exports are varied and valued spectacularly diversely. Entertainment is one of America's largest exports and it is very much not a strictly productive endeavor to be entertained (of course you can argue that entertainment is required for productive work so people don't break down). Healthy, educated, rational, and free populaces are most of the time not competing with t-shirt producing sweat shops -- they are more often designing the t-shirts the sweat shops are making. In addition to this, functioning purely free-market economies basically don't exist anywhere. The idea of a sanction against countries that exploit their workers would be unheard for a strictly economics-focused mindset but is very much possible today. > Historically almost all wealth was built on exploitations - of land, of resources, and of people. What if preventing the exploitation and suffering of your fellows causes everyone to suffer in the long term from economic stagnation? Its a dystopic way to look at the world but given the major economic powerhouses of this and recent eras I just don't see the evidence that its entirely wrong. This is true, but it's a spectrum -- in my opinion, aggressive exploitation simply speeds up growth, it is not necessarily a gating factor. I agree in that I think it's not necessarily wrong but still, if it's a spectrum then why don't we turn the dial back a little bit? There are externalized costs that we're ignoring by normalizing exploitation. Also this constant worry of "economic stagnation" -- this is missing the forest for the trees again, it's worrying about GDP over the wellness of the people of a nation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked#Countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

manigandham 7y ago

There's no such thing as a "living wage". It's a political talking point and you can set the line wherever you want. Higher min. wage increases costs and disproportionately affects smaller companies, leading to closures in every region, country, state and city where it happens. This is also why giant corporations like Walmart even support it since it clears out small local store competition.

azernik 7y ago
It disproportionately affects low-margin, low-productivity companies, not smaller ones.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Those are usually the smaller ones, like restaurants and corner stores run by a single family.
hardwaresofton 7y ago
> There's no such thing as a "living wage". It's a political talking point and you can set the line wherever you want. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- it's just a social construct, and a useful one depending on where your priorities lie. The salient point is that some societies value this concept and draw the line somewhere. If you believe governmental regulation exists to protect the people (at least a little bit), putting a lower bound on what companies are allowed to pay employees in your country/governed region is important. > Higher min. wage increases costs and disproportionately affects smaller companies, leading to closures in every region, country, state and city where it happens. This is also why giant corporations like Walmart even support it since it clears out small local store competition. this is basically the same point rehashed -- I can't say that I added too many facts, but simply implying that min. wage increases hurt small business without discussing the increase in goods purchased is a shallow assessment. When workers who are likely to spend money receive more money in terms of wages, they spend these wages -- this should mean smaller companies will see higher sales as well as big companies. And again, what the economy is doing aside, if you cannot afford to pay a wage that enables your employees to comfortably live, you likely should not exist, find another business. Businesses that attempt to operate in this space are externalizing their costs to society at large -- people who work at these companies depend on social programs that are paid for the society at large.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

> Does GDP matter if a large segment of the population is miserable? Samsung's ability to compete internationally is important but I'd rank that as a second to the health and happiness of it's populace. GDP is what enables society to provide health and happiness to its populace. The problem with Bangladesh, for example, is not income distribution. It's top-line GDP. In Korea, according to the OECD, average household disposable income is $21,000 per year, versus $45,000 per year for the United States: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states. Korea isn't so rich that more even distribution of income without top line GDP growth would be a panacea. (And it's also worth pointing out that measures to distribute income more evenly will generally reduce GDP.)