Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1: Raise the prices. However it may not be possible to raise the prices enough to pay the wages, due to competition. Raise the prices, and the gross income goes down and leaves even less total income to pay the wage increases.
Fallacy alert!
This is simple addition and subtraction. If wages increase and prices increase to exactly compensate, then aggregate sales will not change.
You are forgetting that a bunch of people (poor) now have more money to spend. You are only considering the decline in real buying power for everyone else. If your business serves predominantly wealthy people, then yes, it will probably experience a decline. If it serves poor people then it is likely to experience an increase. Net effect zero.
We have the dogmatic left-wingers who don't understand the perils of excessive redistribution, and at the same time we also have dogmatic right-wingers who don't understand the perils of insufficient redistribution.
Where are these dogmatic left wingers? As far as I can tell they don't exist in any significant numbers except as strawmen.
Redistribution has never been perilously high in the US, anyway. I'm not sure it has ever been that high in any country. Considering wage boosting in addition to public benefits, the Scandinavian countries have at least 2x the redistribution that we do, and they are doing quite well compared to the US and their neighbors.
The peril with redistribution isn't that it is too much, but rather that it is done poorly.
No, and this part isn't political. To cure inequality, some must indeed be taken from one to give to another. "Wealth" is not measured in dollars; it is measured in dollars relative to the entire pie. If everyone has $10 million, no one is rich... because $10 million is not considered rich.
Until you shake the assumption that equal outcome = fair, you'll never understand this.
On top of that, you're ignoring factors that go into producing an outcome, such as effort, productivity, ingenuity, work ethic, risk, etc.
I work 70 hours per week at a job considered so risky that I can't get life insurance (outside of what my employer provides) in order to earn my desired income. My neighbor works a menial blue-collar job, 40 hours per week. Let's assume that half of the difference between his income and mine were taken from me and redistributed to him. While our incomes would be equal, the effort we each exerted to earn those incomes would be unequal, thus the left's vaunted "equality" would come at the expense of fairness.
Until you shake the assumption that equal outcome = fair, you'll never understand this.
Until you learn how to read, you'll never understand this. Please link anyone in this thread that assumed "equal outcome = fair" or said something of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
On top of that, you're ignoring factors that go into producing an outcome, such as effort, productivity, ingenuity, work ethic, risk, etc.
No, I'm not. And that has nothing to do with my post.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
I work 70 hours per week at a job considered so risky that I can't get life insurance (outside of what my employer provides) in order to earn my desired income. My neighbor works a menial blue-collar job, 40 hours per week. Let's assume that half of the difference between his income and mine were taken from me and redistributed to him. While our incomes would be equal, the effort we each exerted to earn those incomes would be unequal, thus the left's vaunted "equality" would come at the expense of fairness.
Cool story. It has nothing to do with my point. The only way someone is rich is to have more than everyone else. The gap is what makes someone rich. Nothing more, nothing less. It's simple.
To cure inequality, some must indeed be taken from one to give to another.
You are assuming that inequality of income and/or assets, on its face, is a problem. You continue to ignore contributing factors.
But comparing the incomes of 2 people or 2 classes is a smokescreen. The real measure of financial health is the difference between one's income and one's financial obligations.
If two people have the exact same income, but different financial obligations, then there is still a net inequality. But such is the result of the choices made by the individuals, thus if a solution is needed, an individual rather than systemic solution is in order.
More money without more goods and services of non-fiat value is not wealth, it is inflation.
[All in good humour]
When speaking about the value of goods and services one wouldn't use "fiat", one would tend to use "commodity" (I think "representative" or "exchange" value are synonymous terms). Fiat value gets its value from some governmental body, which establishes the value of currency without tying it to any commodity, good, or service.
Inflation - a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. Inflation does not require "more money" or "more goods or services" as your definition of inflation would imply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
