3 ms·
> Then raise the wages. Then no one will be able to afford the products the plant is going to build.
by vv_ 2y ago
> Then raise the wages.
Then no one will be able to afford the products the plant is going to build.
- skywal_l 2y agoThey were able to in the 50s/60s/70s. So why not now?
- Draiken 2y agoThe line must go up.
- vv_ 2y agoEveryone in the United States was much more well off in the 50s/60s/70s as they had just won a huge war that left most of their competitors factories completely destroyed. There's no economic boom today.
- hagbarth 2y agoBecause there was a shift to shareholder capitalism. Everything is done to increase shareholder value.
- runako 2y agoThe triumph of conservative ideology has broken the unions. No individual factory worker has the leverage to negotiate a better compensation package against the professional management team at Gap or Deere. The 80s was a period of explicitly designing for this condition; it's just taken a while for the ramifications to be acute. Although it's been obvious for decades that we were headed here.
- e40 2y agoYou mean back when rich people paid serious taxes?
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago> "They were able to in the 50s/60s/70s. So why not now?" Because the 50s/60s/70s was the post-World War II economic boom for the US. Unless you're volunteering to endure World War III so that the next generation can enjoy that kind of boom, that is not going to happen again.
- bcrosby95 2y agoWealth inequality. Increases in productivity are going to the top, not the worker. It's also why social security is going broke. It could be funded if you remove the cap. Removing the cap wouldn't be necessary if there weren't such a wealth inequality problem. The ultra wealthy are hoarding wealth then telling the rest of us we can't afford things we've afforded for over 50 years.
- ImPleadThe5th 2y agoIt's a vicious cycle. But at the end of the day it's the _company_ that has to entice workers.
- vv_ 2y agoThe _company_ also has to stay competitive to make money.
- ImPleadThe5th 2y agoWon't even have a product if you can't convince people to work for you. Believe it or not, its actually the workers who do most of the work.
- vv_ 2y agoI don't understand this line of reasoning. If you build a product that is too expensive to be competitive, nobody is going to buy it. You will not earn money and will not be able to pay workers salaries. What is controversial in this statement?