4 ms·
> 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 p
by 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 agoI 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 agoCapital investment. No one is going to provide capital if there is 0 return. Basically Y Combinator (incl this site) would not exist.
- CRConrad 5y agoCapital, 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.
- BingoAhoy 5y agoAnother example of reinterpreted payroll costs. Different payment scheme but still paying some other people to be money supply for a business(equity).
- nightski 5y agoOK but you are getting off track here. The parent's argument was that if you take GDP / working Americans = working livable wage. My only point was that doesn't work because of costs and investment. Sure you could look at capital investment as a form of payroll, but it's going to heavily skew the numbers and now GDP is not a great way to estimate if we can afford to pay a livable wage simply by looking at GDP.
- BingoAhoy 5y agoYeah your right. Whoops!! Sorry my brain misfired when I read your other response. Deepest apologies, im working with low grade human intelligence machinery here. Need to upgrade to super intelligence next time on reincarnation. Your right, numbers don't show everything and yah just can't redistribute gdp in a communist sort of manner. But I do think one of the parents thinking exercises does indicate that wealth distribution is more of a problem in America than certain European nations. Capitalism for all it's flaws is a great system to motivate work, wealth creation, and capital investment(as u mentioned). In an alternative reality fairer system that can muster up a similar work ethic the average person would be better off and you'd have similar innovation potential but with different work ethic driving motivational mechanisms. But that's a improvable hypothetical to be fair. That's your point of contention right?