4 ms·

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 g

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.
- BingoAhoy 5y ago
  Another example of reinterpreted payroll costs. Different payment scheme but still paying some other people to be money supply for a business(equity).
  - nightski 5y ago
    OK 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 ago
      Yeah 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?

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.
BingoAhoy 5y ago
Another example of reinterpreted payroll costs. Different payment scheme but still paying some other people to be money supply for a business(equity).
- nightski 5y ago
  OK 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 ago
    Yeah 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?