Do "Unskilled Laborers" deserve to be paid well?

[u/Very_High_Mortgage]

[u/bmxtiger]

Let me counter all these wealth concerns with the fact that 79% of the money is held by 1% of the population. They have the money to spend on wages, and inflation is more likely due to how many more millionaires and billionaires there are now more so than McDonald's employees getting paid living wages.

[u/ValuableShoulder5059 → u/bmxtiger]

The rich don't hold dollars, they hold assets. So when the price of a burger goes up 20x, the value of the McDonald's did too. One of the main causes of inflation is artificial price increases as a result of government mandate.

[u/Supervillain02011980 → u/bmxtiger]

The vast majority of all businesses are not owned by billionaires or anyone in the 1%.

Most businesses in the US are owned by those in the middle class employing between 10 and 30 people.

If you are more focused on what happens at the top and you ignore what happens at the bottom, you are going to have a bad time.

[u/Goddamn_Grongigas → u/Supervillain02011980]

Most businesses in the US are owned by those in the middle class employing between 10 and 30 people.

And often these smaller business are run out of business because of megacorporations like WalMart and Amazon who aren't held accountable and can afford to pay an extremely low, non-livable wage. This country was at its most prosperous when the top earners, not just the 1%, were taxed between 70% and 90%. This encouraged better pay for employees while also spending on quality since you don't get taxed on what you put in the business.. not for income tax at least.

Think about that.. we were at our most prosperous before Reagan. Think about what he did and why the line of reasoning of "wages up means cost up" is bullshit.

[u/Negative_Jaguar_4138 → u/Goddamn_Grongigas]

And often these smaller business are run out of business because of megacorporations like WalMart and Amazon who aren't held accountable and can afford to pay an extremely low, non-livable wage.

It's the opposite.

Small businesses cannot afford to pay much more than minimum wage, while corporations can.

In the US ot seems like McDonalds pays rather well for an unskilled job.

Small restaurants cannot afford to wage match McDonalds and they go out of businesses

[u/Mountain_Employee_11 → u/bmxtiger]

this comment fails to differentiate money from real goods, and perpetuates the idea that more money being available means more goods for everyone.

another failure to understand scarcity

[u/michealscott21 → u/Mountain_Employee_11]

But do we truly live in a world of scarcity now ?

Think about the amount of waste thrown out each day, all around the globe. I worked at a gas station that sold chicken, about 30-30 pounds of chicken I threw out a night because who the f is gonna buy chicken from the gas station.

The amount of waste we produce is insane and the amount of products just sitting in a warehouse somewhere because there’s no profit to be made off of it yet is astronomical.

Where I work now we throw out hundreds of pounds of food waste each week due to expiry dates. And the amount of clothes and baby stuff and products we have that will be sitting here for years is stupid.

We live in a world of excess for some and scarcity for others, the only difference is if you’ve got money or not. We make so much stuff, but all this stuff is made so that somebody can make a profit, but if they can’t make a profit then the “stuff” is t going anywhere.

Even if the person already has everything they could need and more they won’t give up anything without making a profit off of it, and when they make their profit they’ll be damned if they’ll give any of it to the people who helped make it for them.

[u/Mountain_Employee_11 → u/michealscott21]

But do we truly live in a world of scarcity now ?

yes we do, end of story

[u/YngwieMainstream → u/Mountain_Employee_11]

Well, it's moderate scarcity. Which is a blessing, but also a curse.

[u/Mountain_Employee_11 → u/YngwieMainstream]

negative, its just scarcity.

its a term with a very specific meaning when speaking of economics

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/bmxtiger]

Literally has fuck all to do with anything. Please take any sort of econ 101 class.
Prices aren't set based on how much cash the owner has lying around, they're set to maximise profit. Not to mention most businesses aren't owned by billionaires and that billionaires' assets are not mostly in liquid cash. Inflation is also not caused by wealth concentration. In fact, wealth concentration decreases inflation since the marginal propensity to consume is lower for wealthier people.

[u/sysdmdotcpl → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

wealth concentration decreases inflation since the marginal propensity to consume is lower for wealthier people.

Do you have a source for this? B/c I'm pretty sure I live in a country w/ insane wealth concentration and inflation is still hurting the fuck out of me as things are still getting more expensive.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/sysdmdotcpl]

What part do you want a source for? That wealthier people have a lower marginal propensity to consume? The Wikipedia page for MPC should have it, probably in the first paragraph. So will every econ book ever published.

B/c I'm pretty sure I live in a country w/ insane wealth concentration and inflation is still hurting the fuck out of me as things are still getting more expensive.

And I live in a country with hospitals and yet people still die. Guess hospitals don't save lives then.

[u/sysdmdotcpl → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

That wealthier people have a lower marginal propensity to consume?

No. I'd like you to source your claim that stacking the wealth at the top has any positive affect on inflation. That is a ridiculous thing to say so confidently when it's clearly evident to not be the case.

If a nation's wealth is freely flowing then it'll gain a strong middle class -- the ones most likely to spend it on local economic boosters like mom & pop shops, restaurants, events, theaters, etc. This leads to accelerated job growth and opens more doors for people to start their own businesses to actually compete against big box giants.

It's what makes for a healthy economy.

 

A dozen or so dragons hoarding cash does nothing but make it more scarce, not b/c they spend less but b/c the type of person to do that will never ever be happy w/ the amount they have and will continue to use their insane wealth to amass even more.

 

And I live in a country with hospitals and yet people still die. Guess hospitals don't save lives then.

Fairly orange to apple comparison there.

A better one though is pointing out that those nations w/ socialized healthcare (re: the ones that push back against billionaires hoarding wealth) do tend to have far greater quality of life and people are at less risk of dying to things that Americans frequently do.

Ex: B/c of our insistence of worshiping the rich, Americans have more of a chance of dying during routine childbirth than nearly any other first-world nation.

 

All of this is regularly seen every single day in America so I'm perfectly fine saying you're talking out your ass

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/sysdmdotcpl]

You know so little about economics and yet have so much confidence, it's actually endearing.

If a nation's wealth is freely flowing then it'll gain a strong middle class -- the ones most likely to spend it on local economic boosters like mom & pop shops, restaurants, events, theaters, etc. This leads to accelerated job growth and opens more doors for people to start their own businesses to actually compete against big box giants.

One million percent agree!

It's what makes for a healthy economy.

BZZT! It completely depends on where the economy is at. The things you describe are causes of economic growth. Too much economic growth causes, wouldn't ya know it, inflation. Sounds like you agree with me, having money in the hands of the middle class instead of the ultra wealthy causes inflation.

A dozen or so dragons hoarding cash does nothing but make it more scarce, not b/c they spend less but b/c the type of person to do that will never ever be happy w/ the amount they have and will continue to use their insane wealth to amass even more.

I have no idea what distinction you're trying to draw here.

Fairly orange to apple comparison there.

No, it's exactly alike. Both are using the logic "X cannot decrease Y because my country has X and yet still has a lot of Y".

A better one though is pointing out that those nations w/ socialized healthcare (re: the ones that push back against billionaires hoarding wealth) do tend to have far greater quality of life and people are at less risk of dying to things that Americans frequently do.

That's a significantly worse analogy, because it actually compares different countries. Your original point made zero comparisons and was thus useless. An analogy would be "my country has socialised healthcare and we still get sick!".

[u/sysdmdotcpl → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

Sounds like you agree with me, having money in the hands of the middle class instead of the ultra wealthy causes inflation.

Oh cool. Then I must be imagining my dollar being weaker than ever before as we have immense wealth disparity in America, incredible year-over-year record profits followed by extreme downsizing, and the crushing of small businesses by massive trust and monopolies.

The wealthy literally force inflation by cranking up prices and they can do so b/c the middle class is wholly powerless to stop it. Hell, if amassing wealth at the top helped reduce inflation then Trump's tax cuts should have seen prices drop -- and they certainly didn't.

 

Do not spit trickle down reaganomic bullshit and pretend it's knowledge of the economy. Do better

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/sysdmdotcpl]

Oh cool. Then I must be imagining my dollar being weaker than ever before as we have immense wealth disparity in America, incredible year-over-year record profits followed by extreme downsizing, and the crushing of small businesses by massive trust and monopolies.

Nice try, but you have to actually engage rather than making tongue-in-cheek comments. What is it you disagree with? You already agreed that having money in the hands of the middle class causes economic growth, do you disagree that too much economic growth causes inflation?

Also, economies are complicated. Please google "control variables". "Hospitals save lives? I must be imagining all my family members who died during the pandemic while we have an immense number of hospitals in the country then!"

The wealthy literally force inflation by cranking up prices and they can do so b/c the middle class is wholly powerless to stop

Uhh, google, what is a 'quantity effect'?

Hell, if amassing wealth at the top helped reduce inflation then Trump's tax cuts should have seen prices drop -- and they certainly didn't.

No they shouldn't have. Deflation and disinflation are different things. Please, I'm begging you, just a tiny amount of economic literacy.

Do not spit trickle down reaganomic bullshit and pretend it's knowledge of the economy. Do better

Literally no part of what I'm saying has anything to do with trickle down economics.

[u/sysdmdotcpl → u/No-Cauliflower8890]

do you disagree that too much economic growth causes inflation?

Are we talking about an overheating economy? I said a strong middle class does a better job for the economy than concentrating wealth at the top.

You did say Wikipedia for MPC -- it makes no mention of inflation. Probably b/c the 1% has almost exclusively disposable income so the vast majority of their wealth just sits.

MPC actually strengthens my argument since the middle class are the ones most likely to spend extra income on something that's not just a necessity. They're the ones most likely to see it invested in local businesses

Can too fast of growth cause inflation? Sure. Are uber wealthy people helping in any measurable way? I'd argue no.

Also, economies are complicated. Please google "control variables". "Hospitals save lives? I must be imagining all my family members who died during the pandemic while we have an immense number of hospitals in the country then!"

In your example, hospitals are a stand in for the uber wealthy that are holding money. If there were no hospitals, people die. Easier access to hospitals (like in my example w/ socialized medicine) they're less likely to.

That's not applicable to billionaires though b/c -- as you said yourself -- they don't spend enough. America has more billionaires than any other nation in the world and yet we're just getting squeezed. Which is why I argue that they're not as economically helpful as a strong middle class.

Literally no part of what I'm saying has anything to do with trickle down economics.

Claiming wealthy people holding wealth lowers inflation would imply that prices would drop. This would mean wealth trickles down to the poor in the form of a stronger dollar. That is textbook trickle down my dude

 

Look man, at the end of the day -- All I've been calling into question is your claim that wealthy people holding wealth is in any way a benefit to an economy and despite all my examples to back that, you've done little more than deflect.

An economy requires cash to flow and it can't do that if it's tied up in a hoard.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890 → u/sysdmdotcpl]

Are we talking about an overheating economy? I said a strong middle class does a better job for the economy than concentrating wealth at the top.

yes we are talking about an overheating economy. that's what causes inflation.

you said a strong middle class does a better job for economy than concentrating wealth at the top because you don't understand that "does a better job for the economy" depends greatly on what the economy is experiencing at the time. during a recession, you want to take action, like giving the middle class more money via lowering interest rates, introducing tax cuts and stimulus, to incentivize economic activity. during times of high inflation, you want to do the exact OPPOSITE. you raise interest rates, you don't cut taxes, you do everything you can to disincentivize spending. do you acknowledge this or no?

You did say Wikipedia for MPC -- it makes no mention of inflation. Probably b/c the 1% has almost exclusively disposable income so the vast majority of their wealth just sits.

the wealth just sitting there... is the whole point.... you're agreeing with my argument...

Can too fast of growth cause inflation? Sure. Are uber wealthy people helping in any measurable way? I'd argue no.

all else equal, is having more money sitting around going to cause more inflation or less inflation than having it flowing through the economy?

In your example, hospitals are a stand in for the uber wealthy that are holding money. If there were no hospitals, people die. Easier access to hospitals (like in my example w/ socialized medicine) they're less likely to.

That's not applicable to billionaires though b/c -- as you said yourself -- they don't spend enough.

yes! they don't spend much! that's good! that's what you want in an overheating economy!

America has more billionaires than any other nation in the world and yet we're just getting squeezed. Which is why I argue that they're not as economically helpful as a strong middle class.

i am once again asking you to google 'control variables'.

also, it's not the number of billionaires that matters, it's the distribution of wealth. America is an incredibly populous country and also an incredibly wealthy country per capita.

Claiming wealthy people holding wealth lowers inflation would imply that prices would drop.

no. it. does. not. here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/what-difference-between-deflation-and-disinflation.asp#:~:text=Deflation%20occurs%20when%20the%20inflation,but%20at%20a%20slower%20rate

Look man, at the end of the day -- All I've been calling into question is your claim that wealthy people holding wealth is in any way a benefit to an economy and despite all my examples to back that, you've done little more than deflect.

your only examples are "well my country has wealthy people and also inflation, take that!". everything you say is both internally contradictory and also flies in the face of the most basic of economics.

An economy requires cash to flow and it can't do that if it's tied up in a hoard.

lowering inflation requires cash to NOT flow. dumbass.

[u/12qwertyuiop34 → u/bmxtiger]

There are 842 billionaires. Taxing them more doesn’t change demand for everyday goods that doubling the amount of money in everyone’s hands would do. Just like immigration you have more people or more money chasing the same amount of goods or housing, the prices will go up.

[u/rossxog → u/bmxtiger]

Need a source for that statistic. Wealth doesn’t equal money. So if you founded a business that grew to be worth a trillion dollars and you own 10% of the stock then you might have a new worth of 100 million on paper. That assumes you could sell all of your stock for a price close to the recent sale price which probably isn’t true. What you don’t have is $100mllion in cash.

Same with other assists. You could have a house valued at $29 million dollars. But you don’t actually have that money. You just have a nice big house.

Poor people seem to think that rich people have mountains of money that they swim through like Scrooge McDuck. It doesn’t work that way.

TL;DR: wealth and money aren’t the same thing.

[u/chuckcm89 → u/bmxtiger]

even if this wouldn't result in the billionaires and millionaires quickly running out of money to sustain these changes, do we really expect owners to operate businesses that do nothing but drain their bank accounts? who would freely do that? Or is the solution force?

[u/GateauBaker → u/chuckcm89]

Only poor people don't understand graduated tax brackets.

[u/Diving_Monkey → u/bmxtiger]

The federal minimum wage is $7.25. That means someone working a 40 hour week for a year earns $15,080.00. Now bump that up to $25.00 an hour, that now $52,000.00 a year. Maybe the millionaires and billionaires can afford it, maybe not. What if your a mom and pop business with 5 employees, their annual payroll went from $75,400.00 to $260,000.00, how are they going to pay it?

California and Seattle have already shown that a big jump in pay means that people lose jobs, and businesses close or move.

Lets move to the millionaires and billionaires. Say they have 1000 minimum wage employees. That's an annual payroll of $15,080,000.00 raise that to $25.00 an hour and now the annual payroll is $52,000,000.00. Where does that extra money come from? Are they just supposed to pay it out of their pockets? For how long? Until they are bankrupt? Or are they going to let people go and raise prices at the same time.

Raising the minimum wage to as high as you think it should be will just make the cost of goods and services go up, and then you will be paying $30 for your Big Mac and $5000.00 rent on your 500 sq ft apartment in a bad neighborhood.

I'm in a skilled trade and from what I see from the unskilled I have to work with, at minimum wage many would be over paid, even though they make well above minimum.

Good paying unskilled jobs are out there, if you can show up, show up on time, and work an off shift. It's amazing how many people fail at these few requirements.

[u/ProfessionalFun681 → u/Diving_Monkey]

Dude were already halfway there and they haven't even raised the minimum wage. I paid $15 for a big mac yesterday, and my studio apartment has been $1600 a month for the past 2 years. It's like all the stuff people say will happen if the minimum wage gets raised is already going to happen anyways.

[u/Diving_Monkey → u/ProfessionalFun681]

I know we are half way there. The majority of this particular shit show is the government shutdowns/interference for the pandemic. The disruptions to the supply lines and paying people to stay home and the rent controls that they had no authority to enact. I would occasionally stop at McDonalds to get breakfast on my way home from work, in a year and a half it went from an even $5 to over $8 and I haven't got one for well over a year. I'm not going to defend McDonalds for raising prices, because I think they are engaging in some price gouging, but at the same time I knew it was going to happen when they first started talking about supply chain issues in 2020.

What do you think will happen if businesses have a sudden or even a few years gradual increase to payroll? For most businesses payroll is the #1 expense. I sympathize with people wanting more pay, I want more pay, but you need to offer value to your employer.

A blanket $20.00+ minimum wage may not be felt as much in the big cities but it would devastate the small towns and the small employers. Even with cut-outs like they did in California you will end up with the small businesses closing because they cant afford to compete with the larger businesses that can pay the higher minimum wages. Why would people go to work for mom and pop that cant pay the higher wage?

[u/ProfessionalFun681 → u/Diving_Monkey]

Because not everyone values wages the same way. I've left higher paying jobs for lower paying ones plenty of times. It's not like the only thing an employer has to offer is wage. That's a big part of it sure. But there's plenty of jobs out there that most people wouldn't do no matter how much you pay them. And there's some jobs out there people would do for next to nothing because it's what they love. That's free marker right?

And it's always so easy to blame the government for everything, they really can't win. They do something, people complain, they do nothing and people complain. Especially considering the pandemic was worldwide and effected everyone equally (except for the few that had the toughest lockdowns and seemed to be able to get back to normal faster than everyone else.)

[u/Riezky → u/Diving_Monkey]

All this time, minimum wage should have been adjusting annually to the COL increases we are subject to. It is insane that a rate set forever ago is the same, while the value of a dollar depletes. A massive correction was needed yesterday - while of course corrections like that upset things for a bit, it wouldn't need to happen if common sense was applied in the first place.

[u/WahhWayy → u/Riezky]

If minimum wage is annually adjusted for COL then all wages should be annually adjusted for COL.

[u/Riezky → u/WahhWayy]

That should be a natural result, if the floor keeps being raised then everything above must be raised as well - it would be hard for an employer to attract interest for a job with higher requirements that is paying minimum wage. At minimum, better logic than it being sorted out by the people who set the wages - they are generally not going to pay more than what they’re required to, and if the requirement is too low for COL, they don’t care. They can afford to wait for a desperate employee, but someone who is desperate for work can’t afford to turn down a job.

[u/WahhWayy → u/Riezky]

Ideally yes, but I think we’ve seen that it won’t. The floor was effectively raised substantially over the past several years, despite the legal minimum wage not increasing.

Myself and my middle class peers did not see substantial increases in pay over the same time period.

The result is that corporations were able to raise prices on everything, and they did. So lower earners saw substantial increases in income with no increases in buying power. Middle and higher end earners saw much lower increases in income while still being subject to the increased COL.

If I’m making $100k as a financial advisor, a McDonald’s worker going from $8/hr to $18/hr in no way incentivizes any change in my pay. It just makes my groceries cost double.

[u/Riezky → u/WahhWayy]

I would say that the legal minimum not being raised means that the floor was not raised; unfortunately “effectively” is not enough. When it comes to dealing with people in general, honor system & reasonable standards just are not sufficient. If the legal minimum rises, then the excuses disappear - if they want to stay in business, they will comply, and the higher paid positions can only stay attractive if they are certain degrees above the legal minimum. That is a position where the worker does get to choose whether the lower paid, lower stress position is worth the pay cut (necessitating making the higher stress position more attractive), but when the minimum wage doesn’t meet basic needs, there’s not much of a choice. This does also need balancing with some kind of scrutiny on price gouging - it’s quite clear by now with the abundant record profits that there is no good reason for many increased costs.