- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,118
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?
- Thread starter Lumpenproletariat
- Start date
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
"arguably, better pay does more good than harm" = Leftist doctrine disproved by real-world fact.
But Minimum Wage is popular with the mindless masses, so nevermind the real world. Just preach the Leftist slogans they want to hear.
That's not all that decreases. It's also production and jobs which decrease, as higher costs are imposed onto employers.
It's harmful to all the workers who lose their jobs or can't get hired in the future, and to all the consumers, because it increases the cost of production = higher prices. It harms all those workers (who are consumers) by increasing the prices they have to pay. Of course some of the particular workers who get higher wages might benefit, if their higher wage is higher than the higher prices they pay, but every minimum wage increase means reduced production and fewer jobs because of the higher labor cost, and higher prices for all.
There is no way to calculate exactly the reduced production and higher prices. But these are inevitable, in some amount. If you think not, then explain what happens if the minimum wage is doubled, from $15 to $30/hour, or to $40/hour, or to $50/hour. You have to admit that it causes job loss and higher prices, and probably shortages to all consumers, as companies shut down production rather than pay such high labor cost. You have to be a fool not to understand this. Never can the MW be increased that much because of the obvious damage it would inflict. So then, what if instead it's increased to only $25 rather than $30/hour? or to $20/hour? There's no evidence of any abrupt cutoff point where the damage suddenly happens at wage levels from that point or higher, but not below that point. Rather, as the labor cost or MW is increased slowly above the market-clearing level -- up from $10/hour, up from $12, from $14, from $16 etc., to higher and higher levels -- the damage done keeps increasing, more and more, as the production is reduced and prices are increased.
There is no empirical evidence to show how much damage is inflicted, but there has to be damage to the economy if higher costs are imposed onto the production, because otherwise the wage level could be driven up without limit with no harm to anyone other than the greedy capitalists, which is not the case. It hurts everyone else also.
The best wage level to get the best results is whatever level is necessary to attract the needed workers, so that the work gets done, and every single worker chooses what wage level is satisfactory, at which it's high enough to be worth it to that individual worker. He/she refuses to do it below that level -- a free choice, meaning it's in that worker's interest to have that job rather than not have it (at that wage level). This level is also the maximum level of production possible, which is always in the consumers' interest. Higher than this level means employers reduce the production (cost too high), whereas below this level means enough workers cannot be found to do the needed work (pay is too low).
So the optimum production-pay-cost level is that which the worker accepts as high enough to make it more worth it to do that job than to not do it, but as low as possible to keep the cost down to attract more buyers.
This is the best wage level for all workers who want to keep their job and are consumers and have to pay prices.
But that's only those particular workers who get the increase, but not any others who get no increase, including all independent contractors, and some wage-earners already above MW. And as the MW is spread more widely it also spreads the higher prices more widely to consumers. You can't increase it or spread it to more wage-earners without also driving up prices higher to pay for it. The higher costs and prices are imposed onto ALL consumers, all workers and all non-workers, while the benefits to some workers go to only those getting that wage increase.
In addition the new unemployment caused affects more workers as the higher wage level is increased, and this too cannot be exactly measured, but every minimum wage increase pushes up unemployment more and more, as hiring by employers is more and more discouraged by the higher labor cost.
No, there's no additional income spreading, after you factor in the reduction of disposable income of those who have to pay for the wage increase (which must be paid for). Those who have to pay for it have LESS disposable income to spend -- i.e., the increased disposable income for some wage-earners is offset by the decreased disposable income of others elsewhere who have to pay for it.
You can't just wave your higher-wages magic wand and give widespread income increases to select beneficiaries without imposing cost onto others who have to pay for it.
No, all of them have to curtail some production as a result of the higher labor cost. Plus, the higher prices ALL consumers must now pay results in lower demand from consumers generally, offsetting any increased demand from some who got pay increases as workers. You can't increase the total demand by giving more money to some which has to be paid by others, because the latter are also consumers, and their incomes are reduced by the higher labor cost.
So, if we double everyone's wages that produces more good than harm? No, it's undeniable that a high degree of increase must do more harm than good. So, at what lower point can you be sure that the good outweighs the harm? We know of no case where it did more good than harm to force up the wage level.
Both theory and practice prove that it can't be done. In the one case of Samoa where the wage increase was significant enough so the result was measurable, it caused reduced production and job losses which were so bad that those who enacted the wage increase had to rescind it, so everyone recognized that it did more harm than good. But there is no case showing the opposite result of more good than harm caused by a MW increase. No one believes a MW increase ever benefited society except Leftists and labor union ideologues and certain workers who got an increase (and their sympathetic friends). But even the Leftist ideologues and pro-labor politicians who imposed the MW increase in Samoa had to recognize that it did net harm to Samoa.
There has to be a standard recognized by all for judging whether it worked or not. When the law imposing the higher wage had to be rescinded even by the ideologues who enacted it, that proves it did more harm than good. When all sides recognize the result, then it's proved objectively.
But you can't name any case ever where both sides agreed that it did more good than harm.
But use your common sense. Consider low-paid workers, like immigrants seeking entry to the U.S. Here's a case of an immigrant from Ghana working full-time in Tijuana, earning $100 per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afJGUmNHm1Y
His employer is not a super-rich capitalist who can afford to pay all his workers $15/hour as you demand every worker in the world has to be paid (or $5 or $10 c.o.l. adjusted). If you impose your demands on all workers everywhere, it would shut down probably 20 or 30% of the world economy and cause mass starvation, not "a better standard of living" enjoyed by workers who "spread their disposable income throughout their community" when businesses have to shut down and low-paying jobs are eliminated and production decreases. These bad conditions are the real results, in the real world, such as happened in Samoa when your plan was imposed onto society. By ideologues who finally had to admit that the real world does not produce the utopian results your Progressive economics doctrines promise.
Your theories to "spread their disposable income throughout the community" have nothing to do with the real world of supply-and-demand and tough choices and competition and cost-control. Go tell those theories to this immigrant from Ghana, to his fish-market employer in Tijuana -- tell them how everyone will be made prosperous if that shop increases their wage to $5 or $10 or $15/hour and how this would "spread" the income around to all and raise everyone's living standard.
But Minimum Wage is popular with the mindless masses, so nevermind the real world. Just preach the Leftist slogans they want to hear.
That's not all that decreases. It's also production and jobs which decrease, as higher costs are imposed onto employers.
It's harmful to all the workers who lose their jobs or can't get hired in the future, and to all the consumers, because it increases the cost of production = higher prices. It harms all those workers (who are consumers) by increasing the prices they have to pay. Of course some of the particular workers who get higher wages might benefit, if their higher wage is higher than the higher prices they pay, but every minimum wage increase means reduced production and fewer jobs because of the higher labor cost, and higher prices for all.
There is no way to calculate exactly the reduced production and higher prices. But these are inevitable, in some amount. If you think not, then explain what happens if the minimum wage is doubled, from $15 to $30/hour, or to $40/hour, or to $50/hour. You have to admit that it causes job loss and higher prices, and probably shortages to all consumers, as companies shut down production rather than pay such high labor cost. You have to be a fool not to understand this. Never can the MW be increased that much because of the obvious damage it would inflict. So then, what if instead it's increased to only $25 rather than $30/hour? or to $20/hour? There's no evidence of any abrupt cutoff point where the damage suddenly happens at wage levels from that point or higher, but not below that point. Rather, as the labor cost or MW is increased slowly above the market-clearing level -- up from $10/hour, up from $12, from $14, from $16 etc., to higher and higher levels -- the damage done keeps increasing, more and more, as the production is reduced and prices are increased.
There is no empirical evidence to show how much damage is inflicted, but there has to be damage to the economy if higher costs are imposed onto the production, because otherwise the wage level could be driven up without limit with no harm to anyone other than the greedy capitalists, which is not the case. It hurts everyone else also.
The best wage level to get the best results is whatever level is necessary to attract the needed workers, so that the work gets done, and every single worker chooses what wage level is satisfactory, at which it's high enough to be worth it to that individual worker. He/she refuses to do it below that level -- a free choice, meaning it's in that worker's interest to have that job rather than not have it (at that wage level). This level is also the maximum level of production possible, which is always in the consumers' interest. Higher than this level means employers reduce the production (cost too high), whereas below this level means enough workers cannot be found to do the needed work (pay is too low).
So the optimum production-pay-cost level is that which the worker accepts as high enough to make it more worth it to do that job than to not do it, but as low as possible to keep the cost down to attract more buyers.
This is the best wage level for all workers who want to keep their job and are consumers and have to pay prices.
But that's only those particular workers who get the increase, but not any others who get no increase, including all independent contractors, and some wage-earners already above MW. And as the MW is spread more widely it also spreads the higher prices more widely to consumers. You can't increase it or spread it to more wage-earners without also driving up prices higher to pay for it. The higher costs and prices are imposed onto ALL consumers, all workers and all non-workers, while the benefits to some workers go to only those getting that wage increase.
In addition the new unemployment caused affects more workers as the higher wage level is increased, and this too cannot be exactly measured, but every minimum wage increase pushes up unemployment more and more, as hiring by employers is more and more discouraged by the higher labor cost.
No, there's no additional income spreading, after you factor in the reduction of disposable income of those who have to pay for the wage increase (which must be paid for). Those who have to pay for it have LESS disposable income to spend -- i.e., the increased disposable income for some wage-earners is offset by the decreased disposable income of others elsewhere who have to pay for it.
You can't just wave your higher-wages magic wand and give widespread income increases to select beneficiaries without imposing cost onto others who have to pay for it.
No, all of them have to curtail some production as a result of the higher labor cost. Plus, the higher prices ALL consumers must now pay results in lower demand from consumers generally, offsetting any increased demand from some who got pay increases as workers. You can't increase the total demand by giving more money to some which has to be paid by others, because the latter are also consumers, and their incomes are reduced by the higher labor cost.
So, if we double everyone's wages that produces more good than harm? No, it's undeniable that a high degree of increase must do more harm than good. So, at what lower point can you be sure that the good outweighs the harm? We know of no case where it did more good than harm to force up the wage level.
Both theory and practice prove that it can't be done. In the one case of Samoa where the wage increase was significant enough so the result was measurable, it caused reduced production and job losses which were so bad that those who enacted the wage increase had to rescind it, so everyone recognized that it did more harm than good. But there is no case showing the opposite result of more good than harm caused by a MW increase. No one believes a MW increase ever benefited society except Leftists and labor union ideologues and certain workers who got an increase (and their sympathetic friends). But even the Leftist ideologues and pro-labor politicians who imposed the MW increase in Samoa had to recognize that it did net harm to Samoa.
There has to be a standard recognized by all for judging whether it worked or not. When the law imposing the higher wage had to be rescinded even by the ideologues who enacted it, that proves it did more harm than good. When all sides recognize the result, then it's proved objectively.
But you can't name any case ever where both sides agreed that it did more good than harm.
But use your common sense. Consider low-paid workers, like immigrants seeking entry to the U.S. Here's a case of an immigrant from Ghana working full-time in Tijuana, earning $100 per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afJGUmNHm1Y
His employer is not a super-rich capitalist who can afford to pay all his workers $15/hour as you demand every worker in the world has to be paid (or $5 or $10 c.o.l. adjusted). If you impose your demands on all workers everywhere, it would shut down probably 20 or 30% of the world economy and cause mass starvation, not "a better standard of living" enjoyed by workers who "spread their disposable income throughout their community" when businesses have to shut down and low-paying jobs are eliminated and production decreases. These bad conditions are the real results, in the real world, such as happened in Samoa when your plan was imposed onto society. By ideologues who finally had to admit that the real world does not produce the utopian results your Progressive economics doctrines promise.
Your theories to "spread their disposable income throughout the community" have nothing to do with the real world of supply-and-demand and tough choices and competition and cost-control. Go tell those theories to this immigrant from Ghana, to his fish-market employer in Tijuana -- tell them how everyone will be made prosperous if that shop increases their wage to $5 or $10 or $15/hour and how this would "spread" the income around to all and raise everyone's living standard.
DBT
Contributor
Yawn...rinse and repeat the same fallacies in defense of the super rich.
Where is your sense of justice?
Not just a poor sense of justice but poor understanding of economics and the consequences of a society where too few people hold too much wealth and power while the rest struggle.
Where is your sense of justice?
Not just a poor sense of justice but poor understanding of economics and the consequences of a society where too few people hold too much wealth and power while the rest struggle.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
stagnating wages (of certain individual workers) = stagnating value (of those individual workers)
And that situation is that the value of those workers is declining, reflected in their declining wages (or "stagnating") as per your stats. That part is not flawed, but an accurate report on the declining and stagnating value of those workers.
"they"? all "workers" everywhere? Why can't you identify them individually?
The scientists, engineers, and other specialists creating that larger pie are getting higher compensation for their contribution. Whereas the excess low-level workers you're whining for are of decreasing value, being expendable and easily replaceable and hence of low value, as reflected in your stats. Their oversupply = their lower value. Supply and demand. Economics 1A.
And all that production would continue anyway if those individual low-value workers you're whining for should quit or get laid off, because they are easily replaceable. Whereas the higher-value workers really creating that wealth are being compensated with higher wages/salaries to reflect their higher value INDIVIDUALLY.
You need to stop sloshing ALL workers everywhere into the same category as a monolithic group. You need to figure it out that some are of higher value than others.
For many workers, yes, because of their stagnating value -- i.e., those particular individual workers referenced in your stats, not ALL workers.
If their share is too much (surplus profit), why don't you ever propose a solution, instead of just the crybaby "fair trade" employer-bashing which does nothing to capture that excess wealth or recycle it to society?
Some taxing the rich would correct this, to increase government revenue to pay for needed infrastructure, etc. This is a real solution which you ignore because it doesn't scapegoat employers and give unearned reward to your crybaby uncompetitive wage-earner victims you pretend to be rescuing from the dirty capitalist pigs which you keep confusing with the employer class.
You need to read Samuelson's Economics (or better yet Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson) instead of your Crybaby Economics textbook. Learn what profit motive and competition and supply-and-demand are about.
And that situation is that the value of those workers is declining, reflected in their declining wages (or "stagnating") as per your stats. That part is not flawed, but an accurate report on the declining and stagnating value of those workers.
"they"? all "workers" everywhere? Why can't you identify them individually?
The scientists, engineers, and other specialists creating that larger pie are getting higher compensation for their contribution. Whereas the excess low-level workers you're whining for are of decreasing value, being expendable and easily replaceable and hence of low value, as reflected in your stats. Their oversupply = their lower value. Supply and demand. Economics 1A.
And all that production would continue anyway if those individual low-value workers you're whining for should quit or get laid off, because they are easily replaceable. Whereas the higher-value workers really creating that wealth are being compensated with higher wages/salaries to reflect their higher value INDIVIDUALLY.
You need to stop sloshing ALL workers everywhere into the same category as a monolithic group. You need to figure it out that some are of higher value than others.
For many workers, yes, because of their stagnating value -- i.e., those particular individual workers referenced in your stats, not ALL workers.
If their share is too much (surplus profit), why don't you ever propose a solution, instead of just the crybaby "fair trade" employer-bashing which does nothing to capture that excess wealth or recycle it to society?
Some taxing the rich would correct this, to increase government revenue to pay for needed infrastructure, etc. This is a real solution which you ignore because it doesn't scapegoat employers and give unearned reward to your crybaby uncompetitive wage-earner victims you pretend to be rescuing from the dirty capitalist pigs which you keep confusing with the employer class.
You need to read Samuelson's Economics (or better yet Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson) instead of your Crybaby Economics textbook. Learn what profit motive and competition and supply-and-demand are about.
DBT
Contributor
The problem has been described. Solutions have been proposed. You take no notice. Rinse and repeat.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,118
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Your "solution" always amounts to pay workers more than they are worth.
Reality: My boss has a standard for any systems to be used on the shop floor: 4th grade friendly. Plenty of experience has taught him anything more complex than that will cause problems. (Note that this does not apply to all the workers, there are some doing specialized jobs that require more competence.)
DBT
Contributor
Your objection has no merit. The reasons why workers fail to get their share of the wealth they help to produce have been described, including the last few decades of decaying income for workers while the top end of town enjoys ever increasing income and wealth.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,118
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Why many ‘essential’ workers get paid so little, according to experts
There are four key reasons, economists say, including an entrenched power differential
Supply and demand
Scalability
The Diamond-Water Paradox
Power differential
Details in the article (A WaPo article so use incognito mode to view).
There are four key reasons, economists say, including an entrenched power differential
Supply and demand
Scalability
The Diamond-Water Paradox
Power differential
Details in the article (A WaPo article so use incognito mode to view).
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Repeat: Employer-bashing and higher wages are not the solution.
If excess profit to the super-rich is the problem, then address that problem instead of continuing to scapegoat all employers.
The explanation is clear to anyone who's not dishonest: Those workers keep getting replaced by something that does the same job for less, so those workers are less and less needed. Also they keep getting replaced by cheap foreign labor, which also makes them less needed. Can't you put 2 and 2 together?
Less needed = Less valuable, or
More replaceable = Less valuable. Are you incapable of understanding Economics 1A, or basic supply-and-demand? That's all it is.
Yes, because the value of so many workers has stagnated. The supply of them increases, while the need for them decreases, as they are replaced more and more by machines and by cheap labor. This has been going on for many decades and for generations, at a faster pace.
Do you understand what Change is? Things don't remain the same -- they change. And the change is that production has been increasing and improving, with less and less need for those workers, because the change makes them easily replaceable. And even if some new workers are needed, to replace the obsolete ones, far fewer of them are needed than before -- reduced need = reduced value.
If you insist on disregarding supply-and-demand, you'll never figure it out. You have to learn something about what "economics" means.
No, it has been addressed and you refuse to recognize supply-and-demand. The companies are generating more wealth = increased profit, but the workers are becoming less and less valuable because they are more and more replaceable = less needed. I.e., the production more and more can get done without them, with fewer and fewer of them.
And even if you're right that the "top end of town" is getting too much, this doesn't change the fact that the workers have become less valuable. If the top elite 1% or .1% is getting too much, or there is surplus profit, the solution to this is to
Why do you insist on scapegoating ALL employers as being some kind of villain causing a problem, when the problem you keep posing is not about them but is about the top elite 1% or .1% super-rich?
No, there's nothing wrong with the low-value wage-earners getting what reflects their stagnating value. What might be indefensible is for some super-rich to reap excess profit. You could make this argument, and the correct solution is to tax that surplus profit, but not to bash all employers as a class, who are not the problem.
What is indefensible is to keep bashing employers as a class, insisting on punishing all of them, especially the low-profit employers who are cutting costs in order to survive, including labor cost. This is legitimate cost-saving to try to make ends meet. In a business struggling to survive, like some sweatshops, e.g., minimizing the labor cost is proper in order to keep the production going.
"fair trade" = shut down those companies, because they have no right to exist.
"free trade" = live and let live -- more production is better, low-paying job is better than no job = more gets produced and consumers are better off = win-win.
If excess profit to the super-rich is the problem, then address that problem instead of continuing to scapegoat all employers.
The explanation is clear to anyone who's not dishonest: Those workers keep getting replaced by something that does the same job for less, so those workers are less and less needed. Also they keep getting replaced by cheap foreign labor, which also makes them less needed. Can't you put 2 and 2 together?
Less needed = Less valuable, or
More replaceable = Less valuable. Are you incapable of understanding Economics 1A, or basic supply-and-demand? That's all it is.
Yes, because the value of so many workers has stagnated. The supply of them increases, while the need for them decreases, as they are replaced more and more by machines and by cheap labor. This has been going on for many decades and for generations, at a faster pace.
Do you understand what Change is? Things don't remain the same -- they change. And the change is that production has been increasing and improving, with less and less need for those workers, because the change makes them easily replaceable. And even if some new workers are needed, to replace the obsolete ones, far fewer of them are needed than before -- reduced need = reduced value.
If you insist on disregarding supply-and-demand, you'll never figure it out. You have to learn something about what "economics" means.
No, it has been addressed and you refuse to recognize supply-and-demand. The companies are generating more wealth = increased profit, but the workers are becoming less and less valuable because they are more and more replaceable = less needed. I.e., the production more and more can get done without them, with fewer and fewer of them.
And even if you're right that the "top end of town" is getting too much, this doesn't change the fact that the workers have become less valuable. If the top elite 1% or .1% is getting too much, or there is surplus profit, the solution to this is to
tax that excess profit
so all society gains that benefit. The solution is not what you propose, to force up ALL wages and thus punish ALL employers, including those struggling to survive. Not all employers are in the top 1% or .1% super-rich as you imagine. Punishing all employers is not the way to get at the excess profits of the super-rich. Why can't you figure this out? Why can't you address this point which has been asked of you 2 or 3 dozen times now with no response from you?Why do you insist on scapegoating ALL employers as being some kind of villain causing a problem, when the problem you keep posing is not about them but is about the top elite 1% or .1% super-rich?
No, there's nothing wrong with the low-value wage-earners getting what reflects their stagnating value. What might be indefensible is for some super-rich to reap excess profit. You could make this argument, and the correct solution is to tax that surplus profit, but not to bash all employers as a class, who are not the problem.
What is indefensible is to keep bashing employers as a class, insisting on punishing all of them, especially the low-profit employers who are cutting costs in order to survive, including labor cost. This is legitimate cost-saving to try to make ends meet. In a business struggling to survive, like some sweatshops, e.g., minimizing the labor cost is proper in order to keep the production going.
"fair trade" = shut down those companies, because they have no right to exist.
"free trade" = live and let live -- more production is better, low-paying job is better than no job = more gets produced and consumers are better off = win-win.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,453
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Only from practical point of view of being able to retain workers. If the human in question is willing to do the work for less than what he needs to survive, that's his miscalculation, not the employer's. On the other hand, if the problem is that people have no choice or they'll starve to death, the solution is for society at large to provide the necessary safety net, not to pin it on employers (except in form of regular taxation).
The general notion that employers owe their employees more than their market wages is not just wrong, it's harmful to social mobility. A person who depends on his employment for his family's health care can't risk resigning to look for a better job, for example.
DBT
Contributor
It's not a matter of owing. Amongst other things, it's a matter of power imbalance between individual workers and the employer.
Collective bargaining improves pay and conditions for workers.
I've never known an employer who offered more than they needed to regardless of their profit margins.
DBT
Contributor
You ignore the proof. You ignore everything, the history of the Labour movement, gross exploitation of workers, imbalance of power, declining value of incomes for workers while the high end of town enjoys ever increasing wealth.....all supported with evidence, stats, examples, but ignored or brushed aside, only to repeat you objection.
DBT
Contributor
That claim and its variations is your only means of defense
A company pays what it needs to: more if workers are hard to find, less if if there is an abundant pool of applicants to draw from...which is why relatively civilized nations have minimum wage as law. Often set too low, unfortunately. Being higher would benefit not only the workers on MW but the economy as a whole.
DBT
Contributor
That's your personal value judgment. Can you back it up with evidence?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Less needed worker = LESS VALUABLE worker.
It's about Economics 1A, or supply-and-demand. -- not about pieces of pie for the holidays.
Which pie? the pumpkin or the white chocolate banana cream?
Instead of the piece of pie small talk, why don't you address our topic. Like telling us how anything you're complaining about is fixed by forcing all employers -- even the marginal ones cutting their costs to the bone to barely survive -- to increase their labor cost above the market level? i.e., above what they need to pay in order to attract the needed workers?
Yes, stats showing workers being paid less to reflect their decreasing value, as they become more replaceable and thus less valuable. Why don't you address the fact that more replaceable = less valuable? Your stats support the fact that many workers have lost value, not that they're paid less than their value. Why don't you ever address this point which has been stated to you at least a dozen times?
You don't believe a worker becomes less valuable as his replaceability keeps increasing? You think that same worker remains just as valuable to the production even though the company now needs only 20% or 10% of the number it used to need? and the number of applicants for that job has now doubled or tripled? Why can't you ever say anything about the easier replaceability of the worker? or the decreasing need for him/her? Why can't you figure out that this explains how the worker's value has decreased from $20/hour to $10/hour? or to even less than that?
And all you want to talk about is the pieces of pie?
Fewer and fewer miners are needed for that, and the miners are more easily replaced, by other applicants lining up to take that job, and also by robots replacing them. Don't worry about a shortage of factories due to a shortage of miners. When a company wants a new factory, their last worry is "Where will we get the miners to extract the raw materials?" No, their only problem is "What the hell are we going to do with all these excess workers we don't need anymore?"
But those workers are a dime-a-dozen. Applicants are lined up at the door chomping at the bit for those jobs. No company is worrying where to find those workers. What they're worried about is what to do with the excess workers now that so many are being eliminated by machines that do the same job at lower cost.
No, they spend them on still more technology to replace still more workers. And also to hire a few high-level workers or specialists for that technology which replaces 100 times as many workers as it now needs -- a few high-level specialists who are well-paid because of their much higher value than the replaceable ones you're obsessed with.
Far fewer than it used to require, and fewer of the ones you're complaining for, whose lower value is reflected in the stats you've shown over and over again, proving that their value has declined.
No, what those workers are not getting is the same percentage they got decades earlier when their value was higher because the need for them was greater and they were less replaceable. I.e., because of supply-and-demand which you're oblivious to.
Their share has greatly decreased, as they are less needed in order to create that wealth, as it's much easier to replace them with others who can do the same job, and with machines which do it at lower cost.
Why can't you understand that as the need for the workers gets less and less, their value also gets less and less? Why can't you figure that out? Why won't you address this point? instead of just jibber-jabbering about the silly pieces of pie?
It's about Economics 1A, or supply-and-demand. -- not about pieces of pie for the holidays.
Which pie? the pumpkin or the white chocolate banana cream?
Instead of the piece of pie small talk, why don't you address our topic. Like telling us how anything you're complaining about is fixed by forcing all employers -- even the marginal ones cutting their costs to the bone to barely survive -- to increase their labor cost above the market level? i.e., above what they need to pay in order to attract the needed workers?
Yes, stats showing workers being paid less to reflect their decreasing value, as they become more replaceable and thus less valuable. Why don't you address the fact that more replaceable = less valuable? Your stats support the fact that many workers have lost value, not that they're paid less than their value. Why don't you ever address this point which has been stated to you at least a dozen times?
You don't believe a worker becomes less valuable as his replaceability keeps increasing? You think that same worker remains just as valuable to the production even though the company now needs only 20% or 10% of the number it used to need? and the number of applicants for that job has now doubled or tripled? Why can't you ever say anything about the easier replaceability of the worker? or the decreasing need for him/her? Why can't you figure out that this explains how the worker's value has decreased from $20/hour to $10/hour? or to even less than that?
And all you want to talk about is the pieces of pie?
Fewer and fewer miners are needed for that, and the miners are more easily replaced, by other applicants lining up to take that job, and also by robots replacing them. Don't worry about a shortage of factories due to a shortage of miners. When a company wants a new factory, their last worry is "Where will we get the miners to extract the raw materials?" No, their only problem is "What the hell are we going to do with all these excess workers we don't need anymore?"
But those workers are a dime-a-dozen. Applicants are lined up at the door chomping at the bit for those jobs. No company is worrying where to find those workers. What they're worried about is what to do with the excess workers now that so many are being eliminated by machines that do the same job at lower cost.
No, they spend them on still more technology to replace still more workers. And also to hire a few high-level workers or specialists for that technology which replaces 100 times as many workers as it now needs -- a few high-level specialists who are well-paid because of their much higher value than the replaceable ones you're obsessed with.
Far fewer than it used to require, and fewer of the ones you're complaining for, whose lower value is reflected in the stats you've shown over and over again, proving that their value has declined.
No, what those workers are not getting is the same percentage they got decades earlier when their value was higher because the need for them was greater and they were less replaceable. I.e., because of supply-and-demand which you're oblivious to.
Their share has greatly decreased, as they are less needed in order to create that wealth, as it's much easier to replace them with others who can do the same job, and with machines which do it at lower cost.
Why can't you understand that as the need for the workers gets less and less, their value also gets less and less? Why can't you figure that out? Why won't you address this point? instead of just jibber-jabbering about the silly pieces of pie?
No, the only facts and figures provided are those reflecting the lower value of those workers -- i.e., their easier replaceability by others who can do the same job, and replaceability by machines which can do it at lower cost. This is the point not being addressed. Why should a worker who is now less needed than 20 or 40 years ago still be paid as much as before? When will any of you address this point of economics?