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.
In one of the businesses I owned this was precisely the issue we had to deal with. We had to compete on a global basis and obviously our labor costs were much higher than other areas of the world. In order to compete we had to automate most of our production processes. The cost savings to the business were tremendous. While this displaced some of the lower level workers it provided higher paying jobs to those that had an apptitude for programming and maintaining the equipment. Had we not automated-all would have been out of work within a few years.
At what cost to society?
If a business does that, then it should damn well pay its taxes so that the local schools, community colleges, universities, etc.. have the resources to educate people to do these increasingly complicated jobs.
We live in an inter-connected system, not a dog-eat-dog world where no one has any responsibility towards anyone else. If the business community does not support its COMMUNITY, it will wither and die for lack of customers because no one has any money to buy their products or they can't find properly qualified workers.
If a business does that, then it should damn well pay its taxes so that the local schools, community colleges, universities, etc.. have the resources to educate people to do these increasingly complicated jobs.
We live in an inter-connected system, not a dog-eat-dog world where no one has any responsibility towards anyone else. If the business community does not support its COMMUNITY, it will wither and die for lack of customers because no one has any money to buy their products or they can't find properly qualified workers.
What makes you think businesses don't support the community? That has not been my experience over the last 30 years. I'm not sure you understood my point! What would have been the cost to society and the local community if we had not automated? Fact is, EVERYONE would have been out of a job (over 160 employees). When a business can no longer compete they go under and there is no ongoing payment of taxes to support the community. Doesn't sound like a good plan to me!
So you're saying businesses have no societal responsibility?
Last I checked, businesses need customers. They also need infrastructure so their customers can get to and from their businesses or the ability to connect online to them and have things delivered. Going completely automated does them no good if they all eliminate their customers buying ability.
Businesses need people to have money to spend on them. If they did not, then Haiti or Sierra Leone would be the best places to do business in the world.
For people that profess to know something about economics seem not to understand or acknowledge the fairly simple concept of "your spending = my income and my spending = your income. That was a basic concept in my econ intro class.
Turning back to the minimum wage argument, we know that the lower earners spend out almost 100% of their income. When minimum wage is raised, there is more business opportunity.
Last I checked, businesses need customers. They also need infrastructure so their customers can get to and from their businesses or the ability to connect online to them and have things delivered. Going completely automated does them no good if they all eliminate their customers buying ability.
funny, that sounds like the job of government not business...
So you're saying businesses have no societal responsibility?
No, I didn't say that. But businesses DON'T have a responsibility to ensure that people remain employed, especially if they haven't developed their human capital to the point where they remain valuable to their employer.
<<Snip>>
Quote:
Businesses need people to have money to spend on them. If they did not, then Haiti or Sierra Leone would be the best places to do business in the world.
A company such as Apple can be very successful operating a manufacturing facility in a country where the general population is too impoverished to buy any of their products, as they aren't relying on that country's population to be part of their market. Haiti and Sierra Leone are poor choices to operate a business primarily due to reasons other than the wealth of the population (think political stability, legal system, property rights, etc.).
Quote:
For people that profess to know something about economics seem not to understand or acknowledge the fairly simple concept of "your spending = my income and my spending = your income. That was a basic concept in my econ intro class.
I don't think that many are missing this concept. However, understanding that concept doesn't require a belief that taking money from the pocket of employers to put into the pocket of employees, especially at a level greater than the market value of the employee's labor, is a good thing.
If you aren't familiar with it, take a look at the "Broken Window Fallacy." The money paid to replace the window is analogous to an increase in the minimum wage.
Quote:
Turning back to the minimum wage argument, we know that the lower earners spend out almost 100% of their income. When minimum wage is raised, there is more business opportunity.
Do high level earners stash their wealth in Mason jars, buried in the backyard, or does their wealth, through high levels of consumption and investment, remain circulating in the economy?
I can assure you that when you actually own a business you are VERY cognizant of the cost of hiring, training and retention. Depending on the business, state of the economy and location there are not always replacements readily available.
In terms of putting money into the hands of people that will spend it, there is a grain of truth to that, however many businesses would never benefit from it and can in fact could be financially harmed. Not all businesses make products that would be purchased by consumers (none of mine ever did)!
By the way, most McDonalds are franchise operations owned by individuals-not the giant evil corporation.
We are not talking about businesses that would not benefit though we are talking about jobs in retail and restaurants because this is where most low wage workers work and it would not question help these businesses if there workers had more money because these are the places they would spend there money. So most McDonalds are franchise operations last time I checked that did prevent the store from making a lot of money in fact it gives the owner a head start because they own a well established business. Not paying your employees enough to live on is very unethical and shows selfishness and greed.
No, I didn't say that. But businesses DON'T have a responsibility to ensure that people remain employed, especially if they haven't developed their human capital to the point where they remain valuable to their employer.
<<Snip>>
A company such as Apple can be very successful operating a manufacturing facility in a country where the general population is too impoverished to buy any of their products, as they aren't relying on that country's population to be part of their market. Haiti and Sierra Leone are poor choices to operate a business primarily due to reasons other than the wealth of the population (think political stability, legal system, property rights, etc.).
I don't think that many are missing this concept. However, understanding that concept doesn't require a belief that taking money from the pocket of employers to put into the pocket of employees, especially at a level greater than the market value of the employee's labor, is a good thing.
If you aren't familiar with it, take a look at the "Broken Window Fallacy." The money paid to replace the window is analogous to an increase in the minimum wage.
Do high level earners stash their wealth in Mason jars, buried in the backyard, or does their wealth, through high levels of consumption and investment, remain circulating in the economy?
How is it not a good thing well it is hard for the employer to make money when less people have money to spend. Or do you think the money people have to spend just magically appears? Who cares if they are paid more then "market value" why is that a bad thing I am sure they are plenty of people in all kinds of jobs who are paid more then market value the world goes on.
How is it not a good thing well it is hard for the employer to make money when less people have money to spend. Or do you think the money people have to spend just magically appears? Who cares if they are paid more then "market value" why is that a bad thing I am sure they are plenty of people in all kinds of jobs who are paid more then market value the world goes on.
You're still here?
Below is a supply and demand graph, labeled to make it easy to understand. Why don't you tell us, in the context of supply and demand, and illustrated with the graph below, just what happens when people are paid more than market rate.
Who cares if they are paid more then "market value" why is that a bad thing
As a consumer I care, I'd rather have lower prices that are possible with lower operating costs.
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.
