4 ms·

That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll. That's not how business or the economy works.

standardUser 5y ago
But it is fair to say that economies that look remarkably like our own are able to support higher wages with no catastrophic downsides. The same argument goes for universal healthcare, family and sick leave, etc.
- nightski 5y ago
  No I don't think that is fair at all and I feel that you need a source that dives deep into the details because it is far more complicated than X country's wages > U.S. wages.
  - onethought 5y ago
    Which part do you want to dive deep? High minimum wages? Or universal health care? Australia has both, and a smaller gdp/capita than the US. Happy to dive as deep as you like. On both front, Australia still has effective unions with political representation, and thus corporate interests don’t always win. That’s the main difference with the US.
    - nightski 5y ago
      Stealing from Jeremy Howard on twitter - "The 5 largest companies in the US are all computer software/hardware. Australia's largest company is in mining, and 4 of the next 5 are banks. Australia really needs to join the modern world..." [1] -- On top of this you haven't compared - 1. The quality of life difference between minimum wage workers in those countries 2. The quality of health care between these countries 3. Median house hold income (not everyone is on minimum wage) 4. Differences in taxes and "net" pay 5. The differences in the makeup of the economies and conditions of jobs Honestly the factors are endless and I am not going to spend more time enumerating them all. [1] https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1403627678528200704 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1403627678528200704
      - onethought 5y ago
        So you want to dive deep or use Twitter quotes? You want to talk about quality of life difference between $7/hour and $23/hour ??? Sure where do you want to start? Want to talk about quality of healthcare… the US will lose badly here (except in certain types of cancer). And skewed statistics because the US just refuses treatment to a bunch of folks which hides treatment/mortality rates. You want to talk about median income 33k (us) vs 43k (au)? Or back to the more pressing point: when you only have corporate lobbyists and no lobbyists for workers (unions) workers get skrewed across the board.
        nightski 5y ago
        Look, all I was arguing is that the economies are vastly different. So what if Australia wins on all of those? I don't believe that is true, but it doesn't matter. All I was saying is you can't use GDP as a gauge for how much money is available for payroll (as suggested by the grandparent). That is very dependent on the economy producing it.
        onethought 5y ago
        … I don’t understand your point. If you are generating a net surplus, then your economy is growing. If your per capita size is large, then inequality is something government can solve with taxation/redistribution it has nothing to do with whether it is iron ore or software generating the taxable $. And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)
        nightski 5y ago
        GDP is gross domestic product. It isn't representative of net surplus. That's my entire point.
        onethought 5y ago
  - standardUser 5y ago
    I am not saying "X country's wages > U.S. wages". I am saying there are a dozen countries, including several that are extremely similar to the US, that not only have higher wages, and higher minimum wages, but also extensive paid family and vacation leave, universal healthcare and a wide range of quality of life metrics around or above what we see in the US.
    - nightski 5y ago
      I wasn't arguing against those things? I was just referring to the parent's comment that based on our GDP we could afford to pay everyone a living wage. Maybe we can, but using the GDP to gauge that is not a valid way to demonstrate that.
maybelsyrup 5y ago
> That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll. You may be right about this. In fact I'd wager that you are. But the problem isn't that part of what you said; it's this: > That's not how business or the economy works. You're probably right about this too! The problem is that, in these conversations, we usually just stop here. Whereas more and more, I'm finding myself asking "can we citizens find ways for business or the economy to work in some other way, even just a little bit? Are we willing to just creatively try and answer some of this stuff?" I think, if you just stop at "that's not how ___ works" without pushing things further, well, it feels like rolling over. The way "business and the economy worked" in the American South as recently as the 60's was that, if you had a certain skin color, you were relegated to a shitty part of, say, the restaurant, or you were prohibited from participating in the economy in any meaningful sense at all. But then some people asked "is there a way for things to work differently?" It's far from sunshine and gumdrops 55 years later but you can't be chucked out of a lunch counter for being black anymore.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BingoAhoy 5y ago
  I think he may actually be wrong, maybe... All costs are payroll costs in an abstraction interpretive sort of way. The non-pay roll-costs such as materials goes to pay other people to make and supply the materials. The cost of steel really is the cost to pay another group to mine, refine, and distribute the steel. Every accountant item I believe can be conceived this way.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Capital investment. No one is going to provide capital if there is 0 return. Basically Y Combinator (incl this site) would not exist.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Capital, in turn, is also just accumulated payroll (or, as I think someone called it, labour). Congratulations, guys, you're well on your way to reinventing Marxian economics.
theonlybutlet 5y ago
It's a good approximation, inequality is what is skewing it in the US.

standardUser 5y ago

But it is fair to say that economies that look remarkably like our own are able to support higher wages with no catastrophic downsides. The same argument goes for universal healthcare, family and sick leave, etc.

nightski 5y ago
No I don't think that is fair at all and I feel that you need a source that dives deep into the details because it is far more complicated than X country's wages > U.S. wages.
- onethought 5y ago
  Which part do you want to dive deep? High minimum wages? Or universal health care? Australia has both, and a smaller gdp/capita than the US. Happy to dive as deep as you like. On both front, Australia still has effective unions with political representation, and thus corporate interests don’t always win. That’s the main difference with the US.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Stealing from Jeremy Howard on twitter - "The 5 largest companies in the US are all computer software/hardware. Australia's largest company is in mining, and 4 of the next 5 are banks. Australia really needs to join the modern world..." [1] -- On top of this you haven't compared - 1. The quality of life difference between minimum wage workers in those countries 2. The quality of health care between these countries 3. Median house hold income (not everyone is on minimum wage) 4. Differences in taxes and "net" pay 5. The differences in the makeup of the economies and conditions of jobs Honestly the factors are endless and I am not going to spend more time enumerating them all. [1] https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1403627678528200704 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1403627678528200704
    - onethought 5y ago
      So you want to dive deep or use Twitter quotes? You want to talk about quality of life difference between $7/hour and $23/hour ??? Sure where do you want to start? Want to talk about quality of healthcare… the US will lose badly here (except in certain types of cancer). And skewed statistics because the US just refuses treatment to a bunch of folks which hides treatment/mortality rates. You want to talk about median income 33k (us) vs 43k (au)? Or back to the more pressing point: when you only have corporate lobbyists and no lobbyists for workers (unions) workers get skrewed across the board.
      - nightski 5y ago
        Look, all I was arguing is that the economies are vastly different. So what if Australia wins on all of those? I don't believe that is true, but it doesn't matter. All I was saying is you can't use GDP as a gauge for how much money is available for payroll (as suggested by the grandparent). That is very dependent on the economy producing it.
        onethought 5y ago
        … I don’t understand your point. If you are generating a net surplus, then your economy is growing. If your per capita size is large, then inequality is something government can solve with taxation/redistribution it has nothing to do with whether it is iron ore or software generating the taxable $. And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)
        nightski 5y ago
        GDP is gross domestic product. It isn't representative of net surplus. That's my entire point.
        onethought 5y ago
- standardUser 5y ago
  I am not saying "X country's wages > U.S. wages". I am saying there are a dozen countries, including several that are extremely similar to the US, that not only have higher wages, and higher minimum wages, but also extensive paid family and vacation leave, universal healthcare and a wide range of quality of life metrics around or above what we see in the US.
  - nightski 5y ago
    I wasn't arguing against those things? I was just referring to the parent's comment that based on our GDP we could afford to pay everyone a living wage. Maybe we can, but using the GDP to gauge that is not a valid way to demonstrate that.

maybelsyrup 5y ago

> That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll. You may be right about this. In fact I'd wager that you are. But the problem isn't that part of what you said; it's this: > That's not how business or the economy works. You're probably right about this too! The problem is that, in these conversations, we usually just stop here. Whereas more and more, I'm finding myself asking "can we citizens find ways for business or the economy to work in some other way, even just a little bit? Are we willing to just creatively try and answer some of this stuff?" I think, if you just stop at "that's not how ___ works" without pushing things further, well, it feels like rolling over. The way "business and the economy worked" in the American South as recently as the 60's was that, if you had a certain skin color, you were relegated to a shitty part of, say, the restaurant, or you were prohibited from participating in the economy in any meaningful sense at all. But then some people asked "is there a way for things to work differently?" It's far from sunshine and gumdrops 55 years later but you can't be chucked out of a lunch counter for being black anymore.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BingoAhoy 5y ago
I think he may actually be wrong, maybe... All costs are payroll costs in an abstraction interpretive sort of way. The non-pay roll-costs such as materials goes to pay other people to make and supply the materials. The cost of steel really is the cost to pay another group to mine, refine, and distribute the steel. Every accountant item I believe can be conceived this way.
- nightski 5y ago
  Capital investment. No one is going to provide capital if there is 0 return. Basically Y Combinator (incl this site) would not exist.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Capital, in turn, is also just accumulated payroll (or, as I think someone called it, labour). Congratulations, guys, you're well on your way to reinventing Marxian economics.

theonlybutlet 5y ago

It's a good approximation, inequality is what is skewing it in the US.