Intro econ doesn't teach real models. Simple graphs like this are for dumbshits to pretend they know something about economics.
Supply and demand is the very core of economics. Argue all you want
Supply and demand is the very core of economics. Argue all you want
Regardless of this stupid line of argument, how much do you think society should subsidize these corporations? Because that's what effectively happens when the employees aren't paid enough to live and need government aid to scrape by.Supply and demand is the very core of economics. Argue all you want
It's very easy, Econ 101 stuff
I have no doubt you can dig up whatever you'd like that says the contrary, but ultimately you can't fight the fundamentals of economics.
Regardless of this stupid line of argument, how much do you think society should subsidize these corporations? Because that's what effectively happens when the employees aren't paid enough to live and need government aid to scrape by.
It's really not Econ 101 at all, and the idea that unemployment and the effects of the minimum wage can be modeled so simply is so naive that I can't imagine you actually believe that nonsense. I mean do you think economists are just wasting thousands of hours of their time studying something they learned their first day of college? Stupidity.
I strongly suggest you expand your understanding of economics and actually read the literature on this, you might be surprised. The literature tends to show between no effect on low skill employment and a modest negative effect, but even if those modest effects are true they are much smaller than people generally assume.
Isn't that much more interesting than stupidly linking some chart?
It's really not Econ 101 at all, and the idea that unemployment and the effects of the minimum wage can be modeled so simply is so naive that I can't imagine you actually believe that nonsense. I mean do you think economists are just wasting thousands of hours of their time studying something they learned their first day of college? Stupidity.
I strongly suggest you expand your understanding of economics and actually read the literature on this, you might be surprised. The literature tends to show between no effect on low skill employment and a modest negative effect, but even if those modest effects are true they are much smaller than people generally assume.
Isn't that much more interesting than stupidly linking some chart?
I get that you want to push for basic income, but we aren't there yet. Money is a store of value, we have to make sure there is actual value behind those dollar bills. Merely printing money and handing it out to everyone saying "here ya go, here's your monthly stipend" is worthless unless there's actual value and wealth being transferred to them.
Everything is supply and demand. To think otherwise is a fool's argument.
Modest effects will little impact is almost never the case on anything. They may be difficult to detect, but there are always plenty of unforeseen consequences that inevitably bear real cost.
The forces of supply and demand are as powerful as they are simple. Feel free to argue that I'm an idiot and I just need to read the things you read all you want, it doesn't change the fundamentals.
Modest effects will little impact is almost never the case on anything. They may be difficult to detect, but there are always plenty of unforeseen consequences that inevitably bear real cost.
The forces of supply and demand are as powerful as they are simple. Feel free to argue that I'm an idiot and I just need to read the things you read all you want, it doesn't change the fundamentals.
Regardless of this stupid line of argument, how much do you think society should subsidize these corporations? Because that's what effectively happens when the employees aren't paid enough to live and need government aid to scrape by.
You can forcibly raise the value of labor as illustrated by the literature surrounding minimum wage. You can't raise it infinitely, but you can definitely raise it. Unionization is another way in which labor costs are forcibly raised, after all, if capital can organize in a collective fashion to raise its profits, labor can do the same thing. Anyway, it's not global competition keeping the burger flipper's wage low. Plus, the issue at hand is society is effectively subsidizing corporations' labor costs and corporations are getting away with it because we are letting them. Minimum wage is a way for society to push back on corporations.You cannot forcibly raise the value of labor. That's an attempt to move against Capitalism, against global market forces at play.
We must design a response to it that accommodates automation, unemployment, and underemployment.
You cannot forcibly raise the value of labor. That's an attempt to move against Capitalism, against global market forces at play.
We must design a response to it that accommodates automation, unemployment, and underemployment.
Got it, I'm just a lowly dumbass. Excuse me while I crawl into my hole.
That assumes a static demand curve, but since consumer disposable income drives demand, it doesn't decrease like that. Otherwise demand would be highest when no one is getting paid for their work.It's very easy, Econ 101 stuff
I have no doubt you can dig up whatever you'd like that says the contrary, but ultimately you can't fight the fundamentals of economics.
Got it, I'm just a lowly dumbass. Excuse me while I crawl into my hole.
That assumes a static demand curve, but since consumer disposable income drives demand, it doesn't decrease like that. Otherwise demand would be highest when no one is getting paid for their work.
Demand for labor would be highest when the wage rate is zero, you're correct. It doesn't have anything to do with it being static.
Ya really mean like the juke box table top menu machines diners had back in the fifties? What's so up to date about machine operated ordering?http://www.wmal.com/2017/02/27/wendys-plans-self-ordering-kiosks-at-1000-locations/
Other fast food restaurants are already doing this and the trend will only be to continue to add more. Their rationale is:
The appeal to younger customers is just or fluff, the labor costs is the meat of it. The recent push for a $15 minimum wage undeniably put the fear into CEO's and as a result r&d is being spent on more and more automation. These kiosks obviously won't replace all labor, but it will certainly do away with some of it. More and more jobs will continue to become automated, while more and more responsibility and work put on the back of those that remain.
I don't necessarily expect fast food workers to understand much about economics, but it's a bit crazy that a lot of educated people were really behind the push knowing full well what the outcome would be. These aren't jobs meant to raise a family on, the value of the work according to the free labor market simply isn't enough to do so. Now due to the fear that places will enact legislation drastically raising their cost of labor they're pursuing automation and who can blame them, they have a business and bottom line to protect.
It's very easy, Econ 101 stuff
I have no doubt you can dig up whatever you'd like that says the contrary, but ultimately you can't fight the fundamentals of economics.