[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 89 KB, 478x462, corporate greed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1431593 No.1431593 [Reply] [Original]

Well capitalists? I'm waiting for an answer.

>> No.1431606

>>1431593
Because of inflation

>> No.1431617

>>1431593
It'd have more to do with the Fed, but people get killed trying to dismantle it.

>> No.1431634

>>1431593
You're right. Let's make minimum wage $56 per hour. The more the merrier. Prices are going to rise anyway.

>> No.1431641

>>1431634
>only $56/hr

fucking capitalist bourgeois scum, AT LEAST $150/HR, we can afford it

>> No.1431650

Just because M > P doesn't mean that other things can also lead to P. I > P. S > P. Etc. This is simple logic.

M = minimum wage
P = rising prices
I = inflation
S = money supply

>> No.1431680

>>1431650
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

>> No.1431706

>>1431680

bingo

>> No.1431708

>>1431680
>Correlation doesn't equal causation.
No, that's a different principle altogether. Rising wages do indeed tend to push up prices, so there is in fact both correlation and causation in this example. It's just not exclusive causation, because other things can and do also lead to rising prices.

>> No.1431722

>>1431634
>>1431641
>there is no compromise, only what my media tells me.
You're part of the issue.

>> No.1431725

>>1431593

Like wages are the only expenses that have increased.

>health insurance
>taxes
>regulations
>commodities
> ect.

Raising minimum wage will be just one more burden on businesses.

The end result will be more people will be laid off and will make automation investments more valuable.

Video related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOcz-H5u3Rk

>> No.1431739

>>1431725
Every smart business should already be moving to automation as much as possible. It's going to happen regardless.

>> No.1431745

>>1431722
Okay smart guy

How much SHOULD minimum wage be?

>> No.1431750
File: 84 KB, 694x455, Fuck You $15 Min Wagers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1431750

As a consumer, I am very much looking forward to ordering from automated machines instead of dealing with some snotty ass, self entitled, nigger who can't speak English and might spit in my food.

Fuck you $15 unskilled laborers.

You are only hastening your own unemployment.

>> No.1431758

>>1431750
>frequenting fast """"""""food"""""""""" establishments
>ever
Stop pretending you're any different from those niggers, poorcuck

>> No.1431762

>>1431745

Wages should be set where one person agrees to voluntarily works for and for what the other person or business is voluntarily willing to pay.

Using government force to over pay people should be illegal and a violation of rights.

>> No.1431765

>>1431762
I know but I wanted to hear what he thinks

>> No.1431784

>>1431593
>raising minimum wage increases prices even more.

what's hard to comprehend you retard?

>> No.1431797

>>1431758
Good nuff for warren buffett

>> No.1431801

>>1431593
>Go to the dollar store in 2004.
>Price of crackers: $1.
>Go to the dollar store in 2016.
>Price of crackers: $1.

>> No.1431816

>>1431745
$12. A steady increase to keep workers able to afford food and for businesses to shut the fuck up.

Though, since people like you are brainwashed, said businesses can just raise the prices in response and sell it off as, "muh profit margin."

>inb4 cuck faggot bernout numale communist

>> No.1431824

>>1431762
>no federal minimum
Business A: Okay I'll just pay workers X.
Business B: Hmm, business A is able to pay his workers less. I will too.
Business A: Now that myself and B are at the same wage I can safely lower it again.
So on and so on. Look at China.

>> No.1431825

>>1431816

cuck faggot bernout numale communist

>> No.1431826

>>1431606
>why has inflation continued to rise despite constant minimal wage
>because of inflation

great logic there you tit

>> No.1431829

> Raging against the machine while standing in the welfare line
> Proud soup kitchen regular taking on the corporate beast

lol

We see alot of homeless SJW's like you around sleeping in the streets of berkeley.

>> No.1431830

>>1431824

Oh look business C raised his wages and took all of our good employees

holy shit they are making more money than us because they have the best workers, better raise our wages to attract better people

>> No.1431838

>>1431830
McDonald's raked in I believe a billion dollars in profit a year or two back. Why the fuck do I need good employees if I can pay the ones that are stuck with me dirt.

Minimum wage isn't for the businesses that want to pay their workers.

>> No.1431853

>>1431801
>go to the dollar store in 2004: price of crackers: $1. Ounces of crackers in the package: 16.
>go to the dollar store in 2016: price of crackers: $1. Ounces of crackers in the package: 8.

>> No.1431858

>>1431838

McDonalds doesn't owe them a job, luckily for them they have managed to make it so easy that mentally retarded people can do it successfully and they have the McUniversity that educates retarded people into managers.

Why should useless people be paid more than they're worth? Mcdonalds will do more good for the world with the capital in their hands than giving it away to niggers that are just going to spend it on an Iphone 6 and new Jordans and still starve.

>> No.1431860

>>1431838
McDonald's doesn't pay min wage. You're not helping yourself here.

>> No.1431863

>>1431593
really makes you think... :(

>> No.1431871

>>1431826
He asked why prices rise

>> No.1431873

>>1431871
I wasn't quoting OP

>> No.1431875

>>1431830
>better raise our wages to attract better people

Said no one, anywhere, ever...

Even the tech world which prides itself on being this egalitarian meritocracy was exposed as having absolute wage collusion industry-wide, led by Apple, at the highest levels, to both suppress wages and keep people from jumping companies. If you left the farm, you were basically unemployable, jumping from shitty failed startup to shitty failed startup getting paid in toilet paper stock hoping for a unicorn.

As for the OP's point, it makes the underlying assumption that people make the argument that raising the minimum wage, AND THAT ONLY RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE, leads to inflation, and that's not true. No one's ever made that argument. There's plenty of factors that cause inflation.

As for whether raising the minimum wage does, I actually don't believe it does. No through any voodoo economics shit or communist leftist logic, but through the simple fact that raising wages increase unemployment, hence there isn't this net increase in low level demand. If I'm paying you $6/hr, and now I have to pay you $15/hr, you better increase your productivity dramatically. You either will, and I'll keep you, and my unit labor costs don't actually change much, or I lay you off.

>> No.1431880

>>1431875
Actually, jury is still out on whether raising minimal wage increases unemployment. Basic micro says yes, but empirical evidence is 50:50. I think the latest studies were done on Seattle and how it works there.

>> No.1431891

>>1431875

>absolute wage collusion industry-wide

ok buddy keep reading CNN.com and believing that offering more money to attract talent doesn't exist anywhere ever

Even the evil greedy capitalist Henry ford invented the $5 dollar a week pay, which was the first time businessmen thought about treating their works better instead of always trying to cut their pay. Guess what? It decrease employee turnover and increase production.....

You liberals really must drink koolaid mixed with paint thinner to make these anti capitalism rationalizations

>> No.1431895

>>1431860
>10 cents above minimum
So people really do fall for these tricks then? Look how gracious we are, a whole extra dime.

>> No.1431896

>>1431880

It varies by industry.

But yeah, depending on the dominating industries of the area minimum wage is changed, there could be dramatic changes in unemployment. Industries with large numbers of minimum wage workers are obviously the most affected, but they are also the most able to take a hit in profits, as they're usually large corporations (again, that varies by area).

This is why a higher federal minimum wage can be a double edge sword. Certain areas will experience better effects than others, and if the overall is beneficial, everyone pats themselves on the backs and calls it a job well done, when there are, in fact, areas that were much better off before. So why didn't the states/areas that benefited just vote to increase their state's minimum wage? People would've been better off everywhere. It's because they're stupid, or don't give enough of a shit unless celebrity politicians are involved (i.e. the fucking president is the only politician most people know anything about).

There are better ways of doing things, but not with such a stupid, apathetic population.

>> No.1431900

>>1431858
Money is spent regardless, anon. Mcdonald's would be more apt to be a liability to an economy in your situation, as at least the niggers you reference are spending. Either way, it will end up in the hands of a big corp and probably be left to stagnant.
>blue is the better color because green isn't

>> No.1431901

>>1431858
Also, I got so caught up on your second paragraph I forgot to ask how exactly you disproved me.

>> No.1431909

>>1431900
>>1431901

i was kind of agreeing with you actually. It's just im saying completely ethical and just that McDonalds SHOULD pays their employees dirt because it requires dirt people, where you believe it's immoral that the evil greedy investors keep their profits.

>> No.1431910

>>1431895
Try $2.

How does it feel getting pulverized?

>> No.1431914

>>1431910
In Europe maybe, but not here. It's $8.39, anon. So 14 cents, my bad.

>> No.1431920

>>1431909
I'm getting tired of this thread, and I should get some work done. So I'll leave with this.
Just because they're dirt people (I hate the majority of people. Bill Burr calls them 'in the way' people.) But it's in the best interests of society to keep these people fed and complacent/give them a modicum of comfort. Because we need the lowest common denominator. A judge of a country is how well off its poor are imo.
I'm glad this didn't devolve into the usual ad homs or partisan memes.

>> No.1431922

>>1431909
There are only so many jobs.

Resources are limited and jobs are a resource.

There are literally not enough jobs in the world for all the people to work. You will run into the problem of skilled people working in unskilled jobs.

That's the real problem with people people shitty wages, is that someone who puts in the time and effort can still come out the other end stuck at the bottom.

Last I looked there were 140 million(ish) jobs in America and over 240 million people of working age.

What are the other 100 million people supposed to do?

>> No.1431925

>>1431922
Start businesses

>> No.1431929
File: 48 KB, 1357x628, World_trade_map.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1431929

>>1431920

>altrusim
>self-interst

pick one

The fact is altruist countries do not work and fail miserably

The other fact is greedier more capitalistic countries prosper.

>> No.1431936

>>1431925
You still run into the issue of market share. There are only so many customers too.

>> No.1432016

>>1431593

Since 1950 American greed has gotten way out of hand.

The gap now between rich, and middle-class + poor is worse than it has ever been in history.

We could literally raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and not raise the price on a single good or service, if the owners of capital and C-level people in society would just accept less income.

>> No.1432020

>>1431750

* error
* error
* there is no option for no pickles sir
* takes a full 2 minutes to perform a simple order

Yeah these will go great.

>> No.1432076

>>1431914
minimum wage is 7.25 retard so try 1.14

>> No.1432093

Funny thing is, losers like OP sit there and pondering useless shit until he eventually an heroes, or gets a job at a fast food restaurant... fulfilling his destiny as the lowest cog in the capitalist system.

lol

>> No.1432098

>>1432076
>I'm so right about everything. So so right my reality exists only.

>> No.1432099

>>1432020

Jesus Christ, its a fast food ordering machine. It's not that complicated.

Japan has been using ordering kiosks for decades and they've worked great. I love their small fast/casual restaurants...

>> No.1432107

Are there any fools out there that somehow think their fucking waiter/cashier jobs CANT be automated?

Fucking $15 minimum wagers are dumber than we thought.

>> No.1432115

>>1431593
that happens independently of capitalism

>> No.1432120

>>1432115

>Under capitalism

The USA should not be even considered a capitalist country anymore, all our problems should now be scapegoated on socialism at this point.

>> No.1432130

>>1431816
Why do you pick $12? What makes $12 or $15 or $1 the "right amount"? Did you just pull a number out of your ass that is somewhere north of what the current minimum wage "no one is complaining about" but below the "fight for $15" amount everyone acknowledges is crazy? Did you pick your own wage perhaps? How to you square the circle that minimum wage laws don't actually end up paying people more, they just put people who aren't worth the value out of a job?

What exactly IS the logical and rational basis for this answer you've provided aside from "it feels right"?

>> No.1432179

>>1431745
None, government should fuck off and let people work for what they want to work for. If you won't work for less than $15/hr then go apply to those jobs. If I'm willing to work for $5/hr then I will

>> No.1432186

>>1431593
It has risen, and the fed are pushing it to be even higher now. The fuck you smoking?

>> No.1432455

>>1432099

How's the self checkout at the grocery store working out for you?

Which is faster, a human or the self checkout?

>> No.1432623

>>1431745
Capitalists are right, we shouldn't increase the minimum wage. Hell, there shouldn't even be a minimum wage.

Government should just provide people with shelter, food and the basic necessities of life, the kind of stuff you can get for minimum wage. And we can just take all that money from the rich to pay for it in one way (taxes) or another (printing money).

>> No.1432648

>>1431593
>>/pol/

>> No.1432735

Here you go OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU

>> No.1432912

>>1431873
That's called a strawman.

>> No.1432921

screw a minimum wage. lets just give all citizens a living wage.

>> No.1432928

The only way to save the world and lead to the best standard of living is to take money from the obscenely rich and give to the less privileged. In addition, the world population needs to be a third of what it is currently for there to be enough resources for high standards of living.

>> No.1432965

>>1431871
and what the fuck do you think inflation is?

how do you think they measure how the value of currencies change?

>> No.1433037

>>1432735
This guy ignores so many fucking things, does the standard liberal tear.

>Hurr Durr Look at americunts poo in loo

>> No.1433042

>>1432076
>minimum wage is the same everywhere
Hah. Minimum in Ontario, Canada is 11.25/hr (roughly 8.50) and YES we get minimum wage from McCucks.

t. A Mcwagecuck

P.S. our top paid wage manager makes $13.70/hr, and he's been working there for 22 years.

>> No.1433043

>>1431593
>inflation
Wew

>> No.1433046

>>1432928
>is to take money from the obscenely rich and give to the less privileged
So actual thievery? Not just >tax is theft but literally stealing from them?

Thank Jebus you'll never hold political office

>> No.1433067

>>1433046
Heard of robinhood? It doesn't matter if you take a billion dollars from someone like Bill Gates. His way of life isn't affected at all. It's not touching the economy sitting in a bank. If it's redistributed to those who need it nobody loses crime rates plumet and standards of living go up. Economies skyrocket. So what if you took from a few people who never needed the money anyway. The alternative is crime death destruction.

>> No.1433102

>>1433067
Even if you took a billion dollars from Bill Gates that is just 0.006% of the US GDP. It is a massive violation of individual rights for virtually no net gain, I also doubt a single cent would go to the homeless or whoever in a system that corrupt.

>> No.1433116

Because the treasury department keeps printing money.

>> No.1433117

>>1432020
>at least 50 years old

>> No.1433118

>>1433102
LOL just bill Gates. You're funny. The top 1% in this country alone own 35% of the country's wealth and the top 20% own 85% of the countries wealth. That is some extreme inequality there. That sounds like a massively Injust system with the most overpopulated prisons. A system with tons of crime and unnecessary death. Oh wait that's already our system. I'd be happy if the top 20% paid an incremented higher tax towards the creation and funding of social services.

>> No.1433120

>>1431750
If unskilled jobs ever become machine jobs, the government will just step in and provide more benefits to those who would find themselves without employment opportunities.

Right now the problem is that there are not many well paying, low skill jobs (compared to earlier decades) and people don't want to work for peanuts when they can sit home and collect comparable gov money via disability, unemployment, welfare. Further disassociating them finding employment isn't going to fix shit. It's just going to balloon welfare programs and make everyone that is working pay even more since the economy will have become even more inefficient with the allocation of labor.

So, no, mechanization taking away Jamal's McJob because he wants to make a little more money isn't going to be seen as a punishment. Jamal is making a good effort to participate in the economy, evidenced by his gainful employment, but greedy d-bags such as yourself want to put him onto welfare out of spite.

You know who is going to end up suffering the most for that transition? It's not the corporate overlords at McDonald's who will benefit from automation. It's you, and everyone else in the underclasses. Collective greed against low-income service workers because the common perception is that they are "greedy" is an extremely poor choice in a time where participation in the workforce is at record lows, more people than ever are on disability and food stamps, et. cetra.

Fucking think about it before you shoot the nose off your face. Welfare is not going away (the people won't allow it), so don't make a piss poor decision out of spite when you don't even comprehend the situation which we are now facing. I'm not saying minimum wage has to go up to $15.00/ hour everywhere, but automation without taxation on the beneficiaries of said automation is going to fuck our collective shit up.

>> No.1433123

>>1431680
Doesn't preclude it either.

>> No.1433128

>>1433102
Massive violation of human rights. Lel. The right to all the money and capital in the world that everyone else starves and you are left the sole survivor owning everything.

>> No.1433131

>>1433120
Yeah, I actually didn't think about this tbqh. It would be nearly impossible to get rid of social programs because of how fucked our job markets are. It's only going to get bigger by automation, so what replaces it? Sounds like another 2008 bubble.

>> No.1433141

>>1431929
Since when are the countries highlighted red altruistic? (I assume that image is thought to prove your point.)

>> No.1433142

>>1433120
>the government will just step in and provide more benefits to those who would find themselves without employment opportunities

I doubt this.
In Scandinavia, probably. In Central Europe, maybe. In the US? Not so much. You do not even have a public long-time unemployment insurance.

>> No.1433147

>>1433131
Automation will only be staved off for so long. Ludditry isn't the answer. I suspect we are just going to end up with huge numbers of unemployed people collecting bennies. It's a narrative that fits well with wealth inequality. Of course, not all poorfag jobs are going to be eliminated through automation, but I'm sure fast food still employs millions of workers which could be replaced with ease.

>>1433142
There are multiple ways by which the poor get government assistance. I didn't say life would be good on those systems. There are loads of people who subsist on what the government will give them, even when it's paltry. I personally know a quite a few people like this. They don't have better prospects, so they've become helpless and reliant upon the government.

>> No.1433149

>>1433147
>There are multiple ways by which the poor get government assistance.

So how comes there are huge amounts of homeless people in the United States?

Not that I do not trust your claims, I am simply interested. In most of Europe, we have transparent social safety nets. In the United States, there are none, yet there is always talk about Americans living on welfare.

>> No.1433150

>>1433149
There aren't very many homeless people. I believe it's about 500,000 at any given point in the year, which is less than half a percent of our total population.

>> No.1433153

>>1433150
add 2-3,000,000 to that and you're in the ballpark.

>> No.1433175

>>1433153
I live in a metro of about half a million people and rarely see homeless people desu. I trust the 500,000 figure. The amount of genuinely homeless people is fairly low (people on the streets, living in their cars, in shelters). If you add in people staying with a friend the figure probably jumps a bit but even 3m people is less than 1% of the US population.

>> No.1433221

>>1431593
Inflation is the correct answer.
The government is printing money, as such 1 dollar today purchases less than 1 dollar last year.
People sometimes refer to inflation as a hidden tax, which in a sense is true as the government devalues every dollar that exists currently by printing more.

>> No.1433223

>>1433150
I would really doubt this number, as even in Germany, with better (actually, almost complete) social safety nets and less total population, we have around 300.000 homeless.

>> No.1433252

>>1432099
Goto Sheetz gas station when its crowded. Holy fuck the imbred retards there taking up 5 minutes at the menu scrollimg through everything hitting every single fucking button.

I want to palm the back of their heads and smash it into the machine like im arnold schwarzenegger.

>> No.1433514

>>1433067
Bill Gates doesn't keep his billions in the bank though. Most everyone with spare cash above basic savings keeps it in various investments where it continues to do real good for the economy. That money is helping companies build new factories, expand their products and services, and develop new technologies.

The ultimate conceit of socialism is that a bunch of useless layabouts know better how to spend any given pile of money than the man who used his wisdom and skill to earn it.

>> No.1433524

Raise the fucking middle wage. Those poor ass motherfuckers immediately spend the fuck out of their grubby pay checks. Great for the economy.

>> No.1433535

Autistes: The Glazed McGuffin Affair.

Increasing the minimum wage doesn't just effect people who earn $8.50, it effects everyone who earns between $8.50-$14.99

Lets have an example shall we?
I own a business that sells Glazed McGuffins.
I have 3 employees that I pay $10 an hour, 20% above the minimum wage.
Each McGuffin costs $1 to make and sells for $2.

Now, lets say that I sell 50 McGuffins an hour.
That's $100 in revenue ($50 is profit)
So, for that hour, I pay each of my workers $10 ($30 total)
So I make $20 an hour, but I have to reinvest some of my profits back into my business so I can produce Glazed McGuffins more efficiently .

Now, lets see what happens when I increase the minimum wage.
I sell 50 McGuffins
$100 in Revenue ($50 is profit)
Of the $50 remaining, each employee gets $15
Now, I the owner, make only $5 an hour.
In response, I increase the price of my McGuffins to $3.
Now, I’d get $150 in Revenue ($100 of which is profit)
My workers get $45 ($15/hr each)
I get $55/hr
but...
Some people are upset about the cost of a single McGuffin and are choosing donuts instead.
I need to take action to keep prices low.
I fire all my workers
I hire skilled laborers to build me a machine that can put out twice the amount of McGuffins/hr that my 3 workers could.
I return my McGuffins to their original price.

3 jobs are gone. I man the register myself.
But, I now make $50/hr .

Pretty cool, right?

>> No.1433541

>>1433150
>>1433153
You are actually both correct. It's estimated that about 500k people in the US are homeless at any given time, but as many as 3.5 million will experience homelessness at some point during the year. The good news is that only a small portion of the homeless population is chronically homeless. Statistically they are singles, blacks, males, those with less than a high school education, unemployed, and living in a city. Each of those categories comprises more than 50% of the chronically homeless.

>> No.1433549

>>1433524
PT Barnum noticed this problem back in 1858

The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man:
"I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together."

"But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?"

"Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"

>> No.1433552
File: 78 KB, 1200x630, Alpsychopath.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1433552

>>1433535
good example. this.

the higher min wage makes the ROI for buying machinery work out. Lower min wage, and the breakeven for automation is too far out

And that's not even mentioning the artificially low interest rate for corp debt are great for capex i.e. automation machinery. Those low rates won't last forever and companies know that. The low rates work best for one-time purchases of machinery that eliminate wages. Great timing to raise minimum wage right? Shoot yourself in the face plebs.

>> No.1433569

>>1431824
But this isn't true at all. The U.S. Could use purely Indian programmers but they don't, because the quality of work isn't as good as American programmers. The companies that only use cheap labor usually suffer

>> No.1433570

>>1433514

This

>> No.1433577

>>1433535
You're missing two things.

>I reinvest to make Glazed McGuffins more effciently

Ok, so what is the new production cost? You said it was 1$ before but what is it now? Or were you lying about making them more efficient?

>3 jobs gone

Yeah and 3 potential customers too. Those people who were a 'drain' on your profits are the same people buying those Glazed McGuffins. A consumer based system can not survive without consumers. If you replace everyone with machines then who will have the money to purchase product?

>> No.1433581

thats nice

>> No.1433582

>>1431880
Don't min. wage increases usually result in the 16 - 24 y/o demographic becoming unemploymed?

>> No.1433650

>>1432016
>If the owners would accept less income
You realize this would just exacerbate the problem right? Small business owners would go out of business being replaced by large corporations that can afford to take a hit on profit margins. They would swalllow up small businesses and thus have more assets, and the gap would widen even more.

>> No.1433740

>>1433650
What are you talking about? The situation he posed was hypothetical. What if prices didn't rise when the minimum wage increased. I don't know how what you said can even be drawn from what he said.

>> No.1433753

>>1433514
Having lots of money doesn't make you good at spending money. It means you are good at saving it. Bill Gates and every other member of the 1% arent spending most of their money. Also keep in mind that most billionaires inherited that money from their parents. They never earned that money. It was given to them. I think we can agree that money in their hands isn't helping the economy.

>> No.1433771

Government devaluing currency

>> No.1433878

>>1433740
>What if prices didn't rise when the minimum wage increased
What I'm saying is that if no prices increased, and minimum wage increased, this would increase costs. An increase of costs, with a decrease net revenue/profit margins. Large corporations can absorb these costs, while smaller businesses can't. This would result in more larger corporations buying out the smaller corporations, which would only increase the wealth gap.
>>1433753
>Having lots of money doesn't mean you're good at spending, it means you're good at saving.
What do you expect these guys to do? Sell all of their investments and spend on riskier or unsatisfactory investments. Just because they don't spend like you want them to, means they're bad for the economy.
>Bill Gates and other 1% aren't spending most of their money
except Bill Gates donated most of his fortune to research.

Look I don't care if you increase taxes on the rich, if it's not offset with responsible gov. spending, it will be a complete waste.

>> No.1433918

>>1433753
>I think we can agree that money in their hands isn't helping the economy.
Says who? What if they invest it just as well or even better than their parents? I don't follow the logic here at all. If they are useless with their money then eventually they'll burn through it and that money will be spent putting roofs over the heads of sports car makers and sending the children of champagne makers to college and so on and so forth. A fool and his money are soon parted and all that. If they aren't parting with their money then they mist not be a fool, regardless of what you may think.

People will never stop fantasizing about how much better life would be for "everyone" if only they could simply have the fruits of someone else's labor (always euphamized as "good fortune", as if getting rich through industry were no different than a casino) for free.

>> No.1433946

>>1431593
Your question is loaded, because it ignores its hidden assumptions.

A more honest wording for it is "If minimum wage increases drive inflation, why is there inflation irregardless of them". The assumption of minimum wage affecting inflation here is something you need to justify with empirical evidence.

>> No.1433972

>>1433918
>the fruits of someone else's labor

Kind of like how business owners are reliant on the labour of their workers?

>> No.1433980

>>1432965
inflation=/=prices
inflation=rising prices; or really: the falling value of currency

>>1431826
>why has inflation continued to rise despite constant minimal wage

>why has rising prices continued to rise despite constant minimal wage

do you see how you are confused by words?

>> No.1434664

>>1433972
That's what they pay them for dipshit.

>> No.1434754

>>1432928
So people that do nothing for money will get money from the people that do have money is what you're proposing is the answer?
What is the incentive to work then? Why do anything to earn yourself a living when all you can do is sit on your ass and take other people's money?
More and more people will continue to not work for money because the ol' gubmint will give them money anyway to which people will answer with not wanting to work because 'why should I work if I can get money without doing anything?'.
This cycle will continue until there's either not enough money to give to all the people or the 'rich' cave in too and there won't be any people to take money from.

Damn, liberals are just a bunch of morons. All you need to do is create an equal playing field so there's equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

TL;DR:
>people get free money
>more people sit on their ass because why work for money?
>repeat until no more money generated to give to people or people to take money from.

>Equality of opportunity > Equality of outcome

>> No.1434790

>>1432623
> one way (taxes) or another (printing money)
>printing money

you just went full retard

>> No.1434808

>>1431750
In Tokyo, the best restaurants are usually relatively small, and some just have a counter around the kitchen where customers can eat.
When you walk in there's a machine by the door. You put money into the machine and then press the button labeled with what you want, and it dispenses a ticket for you. Some places offer add-ons which are additional tickets, so for example if you want a second egg in your ramen you can get an egg ticket to go with your ramen ticket.
Then you hand the ticket to one of the cooks and sit down and wait for your food.

It's all very efficient.

>> No.1434859
File: 9 KB, 240x300, Ludwig von Mises 576x720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1434859

>>1432179
this, minimum wage should no exist

>> No.1434944

>>1434664
Why not let them keep all the fruits of their labour then?

If benefiting off of someone elses work is bad employers should be required to give back all the money that employees generate

>> No.1435013
File: 98 KB, 504x470, cyanide-gas-thank-you-jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1435013

>>1434944
Wow. A salary. No business has ever thought of that. Someone get this guy a Nobel prize for economics.

>> No.1435219

>>1431830
>Oh look business C raised his wages and took all of our good employees
This works only for fields that aren't paying minimum wage anyways.

>> No.1435411

>>1434944
This
>>1435013
He's saying that employees generate a certain amount of money from the labor of its workers. The salaries the workers receive is always less than the amount of money the company makes for the employees labor. If a company had to pay an employee the exact value the company earned for their labor then the company would have no need for you as an employee since you are not profitable for the company. So the company is profiting off of the fruits of someone's labor without equal give back.

Either way employee wages have stagnated since the 1970's while company productivity has kept skyrocketing. The reason is that once employees are making a living wage ( enough to support themselves and their families they stop complaining about lack of propper pay. Employers know this and is one of the reasons they offer raises and benefits for being with their company for a long time. Older employees are less likely to quit the company A they have worked for for 20-30 years even if company B offers a better starting salary and better long term benefits. It isn't worth it to build up your reputation in company B all over again because you aren't 25 anymore. This leaves young workers fresh out of college to be picky with company salaries but young people have to pick a job fast to pay off their college loans and are not used to seeing $40000 dollar salaries tossed in their faces even if the company is underpayment them. Also when good job creation is low and the economy is suffering potential employees have to compete with many others for a position in a company that probably offers a minimal starting salary. These are all reasons why companies have been getting the upper hand over the fruits of their employees labor. This is part of the reason why labor unions exist, to prevent employers from raping their defenceless employees.

>> No.1436218

>>1431920
Its only in the best interest because those people will loot and riot if they are not given their "entitlements" Its like a parent constantly spoiling their child because the child will throw a tantrum if they don't. And then when that child reaches adulthood they become entitled, spoiled brats and no one wants to work with them. Add in the fact that these people can and will reproduce compounding the problem. Im not saying those people are evil or anything. Everyone wants a degree of comfort and dignity but getting it at others expense, especially the people who innovate and produce will create resentment, reason and generosity are expanded to their very limits. That resentment transmutes in anger, apathy, frustration and hopelessness. Then when people get backed into a corner physiologically or spiritually they either break or they lash out. Now you have anarchy. Chaos. Rebels, terrorists, increasing outbursts of raging violence. Jihad.

>> No.1436306

>>1434944
Because then the company wouldn't make a profit and there would be no point in the venture.

You people always see labor as extortion or coercion.
- Needing food and shelter is a fact of reality.
-People sell their labor to an employer in exchange for money (a medium of exchange)
- The employer depriving more value out of you than you from it is the incentive for hiring you.
-Therefor im being exploited

Observe the sheer amount of irrationality in this line of thinking. The jump from the process of a voluntary exchange to the conclusion that one party is being "exploited". When a mother is taking care of her child is she being exploited because the child deprives magnitudes more value from her than she does it? When two people have sex and one enjoys it slighter more that the other was one and exploiter and the other a victim of that exploitation?

>> No.1437056

>>1436306
At no point did I say that at all.

The people arguing against me say it.

The point is, profiting off of someone elses work only seems to be 'bad' when it's the poor taking from the rich, but if it's the other way around all of a sudden 'that's just how it is.'

Profiting off of someone else is not bad, it never has been, in fact most of the time it's the ONLY way to profit.

Also, the idea that workers want more money is somehow 'greedy' even though it's only renegotiating the terms of employment, but employers taking more money for a product or firing workers so they can generate more income for themselves is not?

These arguments are stupid.

Every time a thread like this comes up it's always the same.

Raise minimum wage
But then prices will go up
Not if employers take a cut of their profits
That's stupid

But it's not stupid, actually it's very smart. Minimum wage increases wouldn't cause inflation if the money comes from existing pools of wealth.

Hoarding money causes inflation but telling rich people they have to pay more taxes or spend more money is 'wrong' somehow.

>> No.1438068

>>1431826
Inflation happens due to supply and demand of money/products
Read an economics book for once

>> No.1438080

>>1431593

ceterus paribus

>> No.1438101

>>1434944
Without employers investment and materials to be sold, the employees would generate nothing.

"We need a forklift to lift X pallet." Employers problem

"The employees are all demanding higher wages" Thats the employers problem.

"There is a safety hazard on said job that cant be easily fixed." Thats the employers problem

"We need somone to fill X important position, because Y didnt show up today." Employer needs to redirect resources.

"Customers arent buying our products." Employers problem.

>> No.1438129

>>1437056
Yeah this is pretty true. I can't stand the dirty looks and the snob factor when it comes to getting money on negotiations. It's like, are we suppose to feel bad for wanting more money from a multi-billion dollar corporation? Fuck them, it doesn't matter since getting promotions and raises has been based on jumping companies/getting head-hunted by recruiters anyways.

I thought the arguments over this kind of nature was overblown and retarded but once anybody has worked in the real world and realized what it was all about, it's hard to deny how retarded our economic/professional system is.

>> No.1438336

>>1438101
You're not getting it.

I'm not saying that employers should make no money. I'm saying that the argument being made, that the poor wanting money from the rich, is bad because it's 'benefiting from someone elses labour' is bad then the opposite is true and employers doing to same is bad.

It has to go both ways or neither way.

Employees should make less than they generate because that's how businesses grow, and anyone who had a job should want that business to grow because that's how you maintain job security.

For instance, later this month I will be signing a contract with my employer that will allow me the means to further my education on his dime. Which is great for me because it means that I'll have more marketable skills, and it's great for him because it means he has a better trained employee. The opposite of that is I have to sign a 3 year contract that stipulates that if I leave my job at any point that I owe the total amount of my education back to my employer.

I have co-worker who keeps going on and on about how I'm 'trapped' for three years. While all I can see is job security for three years.

Am I making less than market value? Yeah. Do I work harder than I need to to maintain my position? Yeah. Why do I make less than I am worth and work harder? Because I want the business to survive those 3 years so I get a free education.

I'm not arguing in favour of ruining the economy with a bunch of 'but I earned it' bull shit. The world doesn't owe anyone jack shit, even if they worked for it, but if you sit there and try and say that the system is broken because of either side, you're a fucking liar.

There are perfectly good resolutions to many of these issues, the only thing stopping people, is people.

Don't want inflation to effect prices? Stop taking money out of circulation. It doesn't matter how the money is taken out, it matters that it is. Want to fight it? Put money back in.

>> No.1438391

>>1431925
You have to make the distinction between "any" and "every." "Anybody" could start a business, but "everybody" cannot.

>>1433918
>(always euphamized as "good fortune," as if getting rich through industry were no different than a casino)

Don't play dumb. when your parents have deep pockets, you have opportunities that the proles simply do not have. You could be great at picking out stocks to invest in, but if you don't have the capital to actually invest meaningful amounts, it doesn't matter.

>>1434859
>>1434664

Employees don't have the leverage to demand better wages because they have the choice to either put up with poor treatment and work, or quit and go hungry. Employers have the option to pay their employees more, hire a different employee, or not hire another employee, since their inherent resources (capital invested in the business, if not personal wealth separate from the business) can carry them through far longer than the savings of a worker on minimum wage. The balance of negotiating power is overwhelmingly in favor of the business owner.

>> No.1438835

>>1431824
>Look at China
Exactly, look at how their wages have been going up and up by a factor of 6 in the last ten years alone. Thanks to capitalism.

>be chinese communist in the 70s
>paid 4$ a month for cutting steel all day

>be chinese factory worker today
>paid 4$ a day

>muh poor chinese workers

China is an example of how capitalism can make people's lives better and make the country prosper.
Westerners think the chinese are exploited, not realizing that it used to be much much worse.

>>1431838
If there's a job anyone can do, and many people want it because they need money, why would you not give it to someone who is willing to do it for less?
It's called free market.
Why does Dave get to keep his McDonalds job and leave Pajeet jobless and homeless, when Pajeet is willing to do the same job for much less and just pay rent and food?
Both McDonalds and Pajeet win in this situation.
Dave loses, because he wants more than pajeet and thinks he is entitled to it.

>> No.1438837

>>1431875
>>better raise our wages to attract better people
Ford himself did it, and it absolutely succeeded.
he raised wages overnight at some point, and all of his competitors were forced to do the same because their employees were all fleeing to Ford.

>> No.1438846

>>1434944
>Why not let them keep all the fruits of their labour then?
Why don't those workers work for themselves then?
If you want all "fruits of your labor" work in your own company.
In reality, workers don't produce anything by themselves.
A company does not produce some mystical "value", it sells goods.
A worker is only giving their time and skills to the company, which actually provides him with what he needs to work, and actually sells the goods he produces.
A worker is not in any way entitled to what they "produce" because they don't really produce anything.
That was marx's true mistake.

>> No.1438868

>>1438336
>I'm saying that the argument being made, that the poor wanting money from the rich, is bad because it's 'benefiting from someone else's labour is bad then the opposite is true and employers doing to same is bad.
>It has to go both ways or neither way.
The problem here is that the two are in no way equivalent.
You are trying to twist words.
The rich are not freely benefitting from the poor's labor, they are BUYING it.
The poor who demand money from the rich for free are not giving anything in exchange.
And if they do, they are paid for it. That's employment.

>Stop taking money out of circulation.
Ignorance. Money isn't taken "out of circulation" by rich people.
>It doesn't matter how the money is taken out, it matters that it is.
Again it isn't.
No billionaire has billions in cash, if you believe that it just shows your stupidity.
Most (read: almost of it all in every single case) of the "worth" of rich people is in the shares of companies that they invested in.
That isn't "money taken out of circulation" it's money that makes the economy go round just like money spent by poor people does.
Without lenders (banks) and investors, the economy we have would not exist at the same scale today.

>> No.1438885

>>1438391
>Employees don't have the leverage
They don't have the same powers as businessmen, and they don't have the same responsibilities either.

If you start a business, you have to take risks, and actually getting any money out of your work is entirely on you.
There is no "minimum wage" for entrepreneurs and you might not make any money at all.
In fact you could end up losing all your money and being broke, after working for years.

If you decide to be employed, you have a guaranteed income, and no risk associated with it (generally).
Being an employee means trading power and money with security and lower responsibilities.

>> No.1438896

>>1437056
>Not if employers take a cut of their profits
They won't
Why would they?
There is no logical reason to do so.

>> No.1438916

>>1438896
No logical reason? How about fighting inflation so the dollars they keep are worth more in the long run?

How about keeping a larger work force than competitors and therefore having healthier and more productive employees?

How about showing willingness to share profits and having a more dedicated workforce?

How about being able to keep prices the same so they out price competition and make more money in the long run?

But yeah, you're right, no logical reason.

Just like there was no logical reason to give employees two days off a week, well unless you actually like people buying your products, which is why we have weekends.

Just because you can't see the benefits, doesn't mean there aren't any.

>> No.1438929

>>1438868

http://www.recode.net/2015/10/28/11620122/apple-is-doing-nothing-with-its-206-billion-cash-pile-heres-a

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/billions-in-tax-dollars-sitting-in-banks-unused/

"The cash reserves on which Canadian companies are sitting continue to grow, reaching a record $629.7 billion in the first quarter of this year — and the growth is accelerating."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/21/dead-money-canada-corporate-cash-hoarding_n_5516349.html

Nope, no one sitting on dead money here. Definitely not 600 FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS.

>> No.1438971

>>1431830
>Collusion doesn't exist in ancapistan

>> No.1438976

>>1438916
>No logical reason? How about fighting inflation so the dollars they keep are worth more in the long run?
So if I run a business I'm supposed to take a very real cut in MY pay so that my employees (who aren't doing anything extra) get more money and I'm just supposed to be okay with this because "b-but inflashun"?

>How about keeping a larger work force than competitors and therefore having healthier and more productive employees?
Wait a minute, so I employ more people than necessary and that will make them healthier (?) and more productive (???)

>How about showing willingness to share profits and having a more dedicated workforce?
There are already companies that do this. Companies that pay little often do so because they are forced to compete on price and the only way to keep your price low is to lower your costs. You really think Wal-Mart could have as many locations as it does and sell things as cheap as it does if it paid like Costco?

>How about being able to keep prices the same so they out price competition and make more money in the long run?
If my costs become more than my revenue all my competition has to do is wait until I'm broke.

>Just like there was no logical reason to give employees two days off a week, well unless you actually like people buying your products, which is why we have weekends.
Some people work 7 days a week. Most don't though because they value their marginal time more and more. You have a really disturbingly inaccurate understanding of how basic economics works.

>Just because you can't see the benefits, doesn't mean there aren't any.
Nice Russell's Teapot there.

>> No.1439004

>>1438929
>Nope, no one sitting on dead money here. Definitely not 600 FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS.

Those are not individuals, but companies, and they're mostly extraordinary cases. That's also why they make the news.
In any case 600 billion dollars isn't a lot in the grand scheme of the economy.
It isn't significantly impacting anything.

That said, it is bad for them to keep it like that, but it's not the rule at all.
None of the billionaires keep a large part of their money as cash, because it generally means losing money.

>> No.1439041

>>1439004
in the context of Canada, 600 billion dollars is the entire federal public debt as of 2015

think how much raw infrastructure you could build with even 100 billion dollars

>> No.1439097

>>1432928
>save the world
How about we focus on scientific advancement so that religion dies out much quicker, we are more responsible in regards to population levels and the environment, and discover new ways to increase food production, transport/produce goods more efficiently, live longer, and in general live better? More evenly spread wealth does not directly correlate to a better world.

>> No.1439098
File: 98 KB, 980x1471, 4L_gcnXHLwu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1439098

>>1431593
GREED IS GOOD

>> No.1439101

>>1439097
>>1432928
Forgot to mention, read Atlas Shrugged. Giving people money they have not earned is a huge incentive to not work, and then everything goes to shit.

>> No.1439122

>>1439101
That's not true.

>> No.1439140

>>1432020
>Being a senior citizen
They have one of these at the McDonalds by my house and they're easy as fuck to use.

>> No.1439183
File: 230 KB, 598x792, 4HgSpk3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1439183

>>1439122

>> No.1439212

>>1439183
Burden of proof isn't on me.

>> No.1439221

>>1439101
Do You realize that it is a fiction book (and a shitty one two)? Or is it how Muricans learn in school nowadays, do You study history by reading Mark Twain too?

>> No.1439369

>>1431745
in the perfect world there wouldnt be any minimum wage, but i would say 9.25 is fair

>> No.1439776

>>1431593
minimum wage is one factor among many

>> No.1439792

inflation

>> No.1439858

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Z80J3jOao

>> No.1439866

>>1431593
It's called inflation you tard.

Raising would make it even worse.

>> No.1440028

because raising the minimum wage would kill small businesses


What they dont tell you in school is that life is about making a BUSINESS. not being someone elses wageslave

>> No.1440053

here's a thought experiment to make you understand.

Make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour.

Businesses can't afford to hire people, so they shut down. Farms, factories, all shut down.

So the supply of goods and services shrinks, yet the population continues to grow, so prices rise, and a few businesses remain, paying workers 100/hr but charging huge sums for the scarce products they produce.

this is an extreme example, but it happens, to a degree, whenever you force a minimum wage on businesses. Businesses might not shut down, but they will think twice about expanding, hiring more people, growing, and producing more, if they can't make the economics work.

>> No.1440099

>>1440053
deflation so gud