4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoYes, 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 agoIf 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.