4 ms·

1. Yes companies are greedy. 2. Yes companies hide behind real effects as a justification. 3. Those effects are real anyway. Wage increases are ONE driver of

by csours 3y ago

1. Yes companies are greedy. 2. Yes companies hide behind real effects as a justification. 3. Those effects are real anyway. Wage increases are ONE driver of inflation. The size of this effect depends on a lot of things. Price increases are ONE driver of inflation. The size of this effect depends on a lot of things. When something does not go the way you want, you can't just pick the cause. No matter what starts an avalanche, it will continue to propagate itself. It's fine with me if you are mad at greedy companies. It's fine with me if you are mad at me. My request is that we get more comfortable with the idea that multiple causes can contribute to an effect, and the size of those contributions can change over time.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
Deferring the discussion over a supposed lack of evidence is disingenuous. There is plenty of evidence in the article, though the Economist article provides very little. Given economics is not a hard science, there will never be enough evidence in the world for conclusive "laws" as in physical science, so we have to make do with what we have, and there is a lot in the article to analyze. Your point was "we need more evidence to justify these claims." I feel like the increase of people dying from homelessness is rather strong evidence real wages are not keeping up with inflation. Claiming wage growth causes inflation because companies "might" pass costs is also rather specious. Humility also includes "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize," from the HN guidelines. You avoid discussing the topic entirely, and focus on... an ad hominem? [1] Talking about money is also good, because that's how I pay my bills. [1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/ad%20hominem https://www.wordnik.com/words/ad%20hominem

by csours 3y ago

EchoChamberMan 3y ago

Deferring the discussion over a supposed lack of evidence is disingenuous. There is plenty of evidence in the article, though the Economist article provides very little. Given economics is not a hard science, there will never be enough evidence in the world for conclusive "laws" as in physical science, so we have to make do with what we have, and there is a lot in the article to analyze. Your point was "we need more evidence to justify these claims." I feel like the increase of people dying from homelessness is rather strong evidence real wages are not keeping up with inflation. Claiming wage growth causes inflation because companies "might" pass costs is also rather specious. Humility also includes "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize," from the HN guidelines. You avoid discussing the topic entirely, and focus on... an ad hominem? [1] Talking about money is also good, because that's how I pay my bills. [1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/ad%20hominem https://www.wordnik.com/words/ad%20hominem