|
computer parts posted:Employment remains constant because you determine employment based on what's needed for the job, not how much it will cost. Price of wages does actually effect employment but you're right in that you need some employment for any kind of economic venture, though to say that cost of wages doesn't matter isn't true. VitalSigns posted:Redistributing wealth to the poor creates economic demand because the poor tend to spend most of that money until they reach a basic subsistence level. Yes it's true if you give people money they will spend it. Though, this does not create value because the money is just shifted around in the economy, there is no over all benefit. I do doubt you were making that point but if you're going to argue about the moral necessity for higher minimum wages you shouldn't argue that it's good for the over all economy because you don't seem to have the tools to make that argument.
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Shayu posted:Price of wages does actually effect employment but you're right in that you need some employment for any kind of economic venture, though to say that cost of wages doesn't matter isn't true. They matter at the point of "Do I want to buy a fancy machine to do this or pay laborers". The (much more common) situation I'm talking about is that if you need 4 people to run your business and you have money for 5 people, you get 4 people. You don't get 5 even though you can afford it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Shayu posted:How would higher wages increase demand of employment, then? Locally, higher wages means people will be more likely to buy goods and services, increasing incentives for businesses to provide those services and expand. This is bad for a handful of rich people, because they've spent the last few decades creating a system where most people make JUST ENOUGH to continue buying their poo poo, but not enough to be economically mobile.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Yes it's true if you give people money they will spend it. Though, this does not create value because the money is just shifted around in the economy, there is no over all benefit. This is laughably false. Do free vaccinations for poor people generate no overall benefit to society and create no value since we just shifted the money to pay for that around from somewhere else? What if we gave that money to the poor directly and they happened to use it to buy vaccinations, no benefit here? Your "did we just shift the money from somewhere else" test does not tell us whether we created value or not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Yes it's true if you give people money they will spend it. Though, this does not create value because the money is just shifted around in the economy, there is no over all benefit. I do doubt you were making that point but if you're going to argue about the moral necessity for higher minimum wages you shouldn't argue that it's good for the over all economy because you don't seem to have the tools to make that argument. This is something that a robot programmed by libertarians might say. "What does it matter if 1000 people starve, their existence was of no value to anyone"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Yes it's true if you give people money they will spend it. Though, this does not create value because the money is just shifted around in the economy, there is no over all benefit. I do doubt you were making that point but if you're going to argue about the moral necessity for higher minimum wages you shouldn't argue that it's good for the over all economy because you don't seem to have the tools to make that argument. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1948/economics/the-multiplier-effect/ This is Econ 110 level macroeconomics.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Yes it's true if you give people money they will spend it. Though, this does not create value because the money is just shifted around in the economy, there is no over all benefit. I do doubt you were making that point but if you're going to argue about the moral necessity for higher minimum wages you shouldn't argue that it's good for the over all economy because you don't seem to have the tools to make that argument. So, if people being able to spend more because they earn more doesn't create an economic benefit the inverse must be true as well, yes? People having less money and therefore spending less will not harm the economy. That is what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
I would think that if there is a great need for food, but because those who need it don't have money we let our capacity to grow more food sit idle and the able-bodied people who could be growing it sit idle as well with no income, then we're wasting a lot of productive potential in our economy. What's weird about Libertarians is they seem to recognize that spending money can raise GDP by more than the amount spent, because if it weren't so. investments could never have positive returns. But because they're ideologically committed to "no money for the poor, and no government, ever" they insist that this is actually false and it's absurd to think that spending money could ever bring overall economic returns. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:19 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:So, if people being able to spend more because they earn more doesn't create an economic benefit the inverse must be true as well, yes? People having less money and therefore spending less will not harm the economy. That is what you're saying. Wealth can never be created. If you take all the money, wealth, and resources in the country and give them to one dude, this will have no net effect on the economy, production, or GDP because you just shifted wealth from one place to another.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They matter at the point of "Do I want to buy a fancy machine to do this or pay laborers". I get what you are saying here, but what about situations where employers are actually looking trying to take care of their employees by not borderline understaffing them? I guess a good example is the hospital I work at. Administration is perfectly fine with giving us a 6:1 patient ratio even though a 5:1 ratio is much safer, less stressful, and less likely to see people quit. The floor manager knows whats up and is trying to keep us staffed so that we can have a 5:1 patient ratio. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Does the staff you're talking about earn minimum wage?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does the staff you're talking about earn minimum wage? Of course not, but I wasn't sure if there was a distinction or not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
I guess I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying that even though it's technically possible to run the floor at a 6:1 ratio, your manager finds that the business operates more smoothly, with greater satisfaction, and can keep better employees when running at a 5:1 ratio, so even though the business could save money by dropping staff it's not worth the savings. And this despite the fact that your staff earns much more than minimum wage. This seems to support the argument that businesses hire the number of people they need to do the job instead of trying to keep labor costs below an arbitrary amount, is that the point your story is intended to convey?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I guess I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Yes, you nailed it perfectly. I have seen so many businesses just simply not take into account employee stress or just not give a poo poo that they are making 1 employee do the work of 2 because it is all about the bottom line and profit short term.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1948/economics/the-multiplier-effect/ A minimum wage is not an injection into the economy, it's actually taking money out of the economy, or in the best case, a transfer within the economy. This is Econ 110 level microeconomics.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:A minimum wage is not an injection into the economy, it's actually taking money out of the economy, or in the best case, a transfer within the economy. haha what its a transfer of wealth to people with a greater MPC because they need money not to die what the gently caress are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:haha what we already discussed how its actually a transfer thats slightly better than handing out money randomly to people on the street
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:This is 110 level wizard macrobuttnomics. I agree.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:we already discussed how its actually a transfer thats slightly better than handing out money randomly to people on the street
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wealth can never be created. Comforting to see that people still don't understand the relationship between demand and wealth. Wealth in created in production (something marx correctly emphasized). If financial demand results in more production great. But it doesn't alwways work that way which we know because inflation exists. Also, financial demand can literally be created out of thin air by the central bank anytime it wants.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:I already explained how that's also bullshit but okay. Also I don't think it's likely that there's as even a share of people paying out minimum wage from the lower income groups. Oh yeah, it was "bullshit" because apparently the upper middle class who benefit from the minimum wage almost as much as the poorest 20% are actually poor as well? Am I remembering this correctly? Given how completely wrong your prior beliefs were about the recipients of minimum wage, I'm not sure how much confidence we should put in your estimates of the demographics of people paying minimum wage workers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
What programs do you support to help the poor, GP? Basic income, or what.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I guess I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I'm baffled as to how you can read such a thing and come to that conclusion. Not every higher decision is the result of achieving minimum staffing, many are based on the employer receiving X (greater efficiency, output, whatever) benefit for Y cost, if you make the cost go up that changes the calculus.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Oh yeah, it was "bullshit" because apparently the upper middle class who benefit from the minimum wage almost as much as the poorest 20% are actually poor as well? Am I remembering this correctly? Nope you're dense as usual. It's that not helping the upper middle class is not a good reason to not help the poor and that them getting part of it doesn't cancel out the greater help given to the poorer people. Additionally they're not financially secure but that's a secondary point. And your statement that there were basically the same number of people receiving it in the top quintile as the bottom was absolutely absurdly wrong so really your judgement is way more suspect than mine. Also the idea that poor people employ fewer people than rich people isn't actually controversial.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm baffled as to how you can read such a thing and come to that conclusion. Yep, the "but employers hire the right number of people for a job argument" is terrible. The right number of people for a job depends on price. Literally millions of jobs have been automated or moved overseas because of their cost.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:Nope you're dense as usual. It's that not helping the upper middle class is not a good reason to not help the poor and that them getting part of it doesn't cancel out the greater help given to the poorer people. Additionally they're not financially secure but that's a secondary point. Your "hurrr durrr MPC" argument falls apart when you realize that the MPC of minimum wage workers isn't that different from the MPC of the entire population because minimum wage workers are almost as likely to be upper middle class than the general population. Not to mention the loss in purchasing power for all other people (includes: most poor people), which you're ignoring.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:And your statement that there were basically the same number of people receiving it in the top quintile as the bottom was absolutely absurdly wrong so really your judgement is way more suspect than mine. Also the idea that poor people employ fewer people than rich people isn't actually controversial. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163880944640994 quote:Roughly half the minimum-wage workforce is employed at businesses with fewer than 100 employees, and 40% are at very small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. My god, imagine the benefits when we transfer wealth from a group of people almost as good as random with a small bias towards wealthy people to a group of people almost as good as random with a small bias towards poor people! We've achieved the ultimate goal, a minor change in THE MARGINAL PROPENSITY TO CONSUME! This is really going to deal with wealth inequality and poverty in America!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm baffled as to how you can read such a thing and come to that conclusion. blackguy32 posted:Yes, you nailed it perfectly.  Jarmak posted:Not every higher decision is the result of achieving minimum staffing, many are based on the employer receiving X (greater efficiency, output, whatever) benefit for Y cost, if you make the cost go up that changes the calculus. On the other hand, we know that the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment. asdf32 posted:Literally millions of jobs have been automated or moved overseas because of their cost. Cost of living alone makes it impossible for Americans to compete with those jobs, even if you abolished the minimum wage they wouldn't come back. If you're mad about this, blame neoliberal free trade policies, not the minimum wage which has been steadily falling during the decades of outsourcing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Sorry but this is the 3rd or 4th time somone has suggested that the purpose of minimum wage is so workers can save for an upcoming robot apocalypse and subsequent permanent unemployment. This is one of the weirdiest and saddest arguments I've seen. For multiple reasons. Among them: people don't save money. Even the middle class, something actually trumpeted by supporters because it produces demand. Perhaps it is so weird because that isn't what I said at all. You must be having some real strong robot apocalypse fantasies if your fevered brain removed my actual words and replaced it with that. I suppose it is what I get by lending any credit whatsoever to your automation argument, so I guess you have taught me a valuable lesson after all.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Literally millions of jobs have been automated or moved overseas because of their cost. quote:Yet here we are with low unemployment and a growing economy so perhaps the answer in the face of automation is not to push wages (remember, these were middle class blue collar jobs) as low as possible out of fear.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I get what you are saying here, but what about situations where employers are actually looking trying to take care of their employees by not borderline understaffing them? There's different definitions of need but certainly you can have a safety factor built into your required numbers (i.e., hiring 105 people instead of 100 just in case someone gets sick). The point I was making is that businesses don't hire more people than they deem necessary. In your case, having more people to reduce stress is necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
What determines how many workers are necessary?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What determines how many workers are necessary? In the case of many businesses currently (see: Walmart) as few as possible. Which means a wage increase is unlikely to change how many people are employed since they're operating with as few employees as possible already. For others, like the hospital example, enough to make sure their workers aren't exhausted and don't make mistakes that could result in legal liability.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Though, this does not create value because the money is just shifted around in the economy, there is no over all benefit. What do you think GDP is a measure of?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:In the case of many businesses currently (see: Walmart) as few as possible. Which means a wage increase is unlikely to change how many people are employed since they're operating with as few employees as possible already. Why as few as possible? Has Walmart reached a limit where they would lose money with additional employees?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Why as few as possible? Has Walmart reached a limit where they would lose money with additional employees? To pare down labor costs as much as possible to increase profits? Understaffing at Walmarts has been a big thing in recent years.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What determines how many workers are necessary? General but but not a concrete order: quote:1. Figure out your industry (usually the easiest part) The only point where you really care about labor costs is Step 3. It's also not a simple "will this cost more than that after 5 years" calculation because machines require a large amount of money up front while people are cheap pretty much at all times (discounting injuries, etc).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's different definitions of need but certainly you can have a safety factor built into your required numbers (i.e., hiring 105 people instead of 100 just in case someone gets sick). There is no definition for necessary in the majority of cases. There is just a number which is most profitable. In this example there is a cost/benefit to reducing stress which is certainly impacted by wage. In other examples local workers are compared against capital or foreign workers. Wal-mart could never have lines at the registers if it didn't want to, but chooses to allow lines (customer dissatisfaction) sometimes to save on wages. That tradeoffs can change too. Or more of the backend work could be automated. Etc etc. VideoTapir posted:What do you think GDP is a measure of? Production.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's different definitions of need but certainly you can have a safety factor built into your required numbers (i.e., hiring 105 people instead of 100 just in case someone gets sick). Think of your own life. Are there things you pay other people to do for you? Would you find other ways to meet some of those needs if the price demanded of you got high enough? It's like that. Necessity is always assessed in the context of the cost involved.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
computer parts posted:General but but not a concrete order: This is the most justfinishedmyintrotobusinesscourse.txt post.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:14
|
|