3 ms·

It's not like the working class doesn't have to eat. In fact, they will be hit hardest by increasing food prices. > Indication of some degree of food insecurit

It's not like the working class doesn't have to eat. In fact, they will be hit hardest by increasing food prices. > Indication of some degree of food insecurity was reported by 14.2% of the sample and tended to be higher amongst younger age groups, those on lower incomes, and home renters (as opposed to owners). https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pubmed/fdab120/6232493 https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/advance-article/doi/10.1... I somewhat doubt that we're talking about upper/middle classes here.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
True - but other aspects of your running costs (electricity, gas, rent, etc) will not increase, as I don't believe they depend on cheap labour. Interestingly (can't find the reference right now), I've read that the high cost of labour in the UK contributed to the push for mechanisation of farming, which resulted in the industrial revolution (something we have all benefited from). In China, labour costs were (are?) so low that there was no reason to invent a farming machine, when you could pay a peasant to do the job for less. So if this runs long term, we will see further automation of farming?
- neilwilson 5y ago
  The UK will need to adopt the approaches in farming taken by the Dutch amongst others. The crops planted will be the ones more amenable to automation.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Or just better distribution. It’s not hard for an Apple picker to pick a few dollars worth of apples per minute at harvest time, but that’s the supermarket price, not what the farmer can sell them off for per bushel. I know picking isn’t the only cost, but it seems like the cost of picking doubling or trebling should have minute effect on profitability. Farmers need to get better at capturing the price that consumers are willing to pay. Somehow, farmers markets have become the place to pay premium prices instead of lower prices. Or convince consumers that a bit of scab on an apple is fine to eat and doesn’t need to be destined to make sauce or juice.
nicoburns 5y ago
Not if their wages grow in line with the increases.
- xienze 5y ago
  Yes, "if". The problem is that companies don't move in lockstep with the broader economy, so it might take a year or two of food and goods increasing in price 12% before your company has managed to give you a 5% raise, which in turn requires them to raise the prices of their goods. And hopefully _their_ customers don't balk at the increased price because _they_ haven't yet been able to absorb their own set of wage increases.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    The context of this post is that companies are having difficulty hiring and are having to increase wages. Which is what is being hypothesised to lead to price increases. Which would suggest that wage increases would come first in this instance.
    - xienze 5y ago
      Yes, but they're hesitant to do that because of the impact the wage increases (which then get passed on to consumers) will have on sales. There's this notion that companies could simply double or triple wages with a negligible impact on the bottom line or consumer prices but are just being dicks. Which is not really the case. Margins are just razor-thin. So you get in a sort of Mexican standoff situation. Who's going to blink first, raise wages, and lose sales?
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        If they can't find staff then the companies don't have much choice but to raise wages. They'll lose more sales if they have to close their business due to lack of staff.
neilwilson 5y ago
"It's not like the working class doesn't have to eat. In fact, they will be hit hardest by increasing food prices." But they are the ones getting the higher wages, so it doesn't matter. It's those people not getting wage increases that end up taking the loss - which is the middle class and the public sector.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

True - but other aspects of your running costs (electricity, gas, rent, etc) will not increase, as I don't believe they depend on cheap labour. Interestingly (can't find the reference right now), I've read that the high cost of labour in the UK contributed to the push for mechanisation of farming, which resulted in the industrial revolution (something we have all benefited from). In China, labour costs were (are?) so low that there was no reason to invent a farming machine, when you could pay a peasant to do the job for less. So if this runs long term, we will see further automation of farming?

neilwilson 5y ago
The UK will need to adopt the approaches in farming taken by the Dutch amongst others. The crops planted will be the ones more amenable to automation.
Scoundreller 5y ago
Or just better distribution. It’s not hard for an Apple picker to pick a few dollars worth of apples per minute at harvest time, but that’s the supermarket price, not what the farmer can sell them off for per bushel. I know picking isn’t the only cost, but it seems like the cost of picking doubling or trebling should have minute effect on profitability. Farmers need to get better at capturing the price that consumers are willing to pay. Somehow, farmers markets have become the place to pay premium prices instead of lower prices. Or convince consumers that a bit of scab on an apple is fine to eat and doesn’t need to be destined to make sauce or juice.

nicoburns 5y ago

Not if their wages grow in line with the increases.

xienze 5y ago
Yes, "if". The problem is that companies don't move in lockstep with the broader economy, so it might take a year or two of food and goods increasing in price 12% before your company has managed to give you a 5% raise, which in turn requires them to raise the prices of their goods. And hopefully _their_ customers don't balk at the increased price because _they_ haven't yet been able to absorb their own set of wage increases.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  The context of this post is that companies are having difficulty hiring and are having to increase wages. Which is what is being hypothesised to lead to price increases. Which would suggest that wage increases would come first in this instance.
  - xienze 5y ago
    Yes, but they're hesitant to do that because of the impact the wage increases (which then get passed on to consumers) will have on sales. There's this notion that companies could simply double or triple wages with a negligible impact on the bottom line or consumer prices but are just being dicks. Which is not really the case. Margins are just razor-thin. So you get in a sort of Mexican standoff situation. Who's going to blink first, raise wages, and lose sales?
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      If they can't find staff then the companies don't have much choice but to raise wages. They'll lose more sales if they have to close their business due to lack of staff.

neilwilson 5y ago

"It's not like the working class doesn't have to eat. In fact, they will be hit hardest by increasing food prices." But they are the ones getting the higher wages, so it doesn't matter. It's those people not getting wage increases that end up taking the loss - which is the middle class and the public sector.