View Single Post
Old 11-07-2013, 07:35 AM   #41
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,450

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
If I require an employee, I damn well better pay them enough to retain their services. If I don't, I'll go out of business.

Unless I can convince someone else *cough*taxpayers*cough* to help me pay his wage that is. Then I can have my cake and eat it too, and the expense of society of course. But **** society, greed is good!

What's so difficult for you to understand about that?
Not sure if you're aware of this, but in the aggregate, employers compete for the most in-demand workers.

If you artificially inflate the price of workers in lower demand, you do two things. You drive up the wages of those workers actually in heavy demand. And you put the workers in lower demand out of work. Via automation, offshoring, etc.

Which only accentuates the income disparity, and renders whole swaths of people completely (as opposed to maybe partially) dependent on the state.

Wage inflation is not a zero sum game. At the end of the day, the government isn't paying those people. You are. You're paying the Walmart workers. You're paying farm workers. You're paying teachers, and plumbers, and on and on.

Artificially raising their wages means your wages don't go as far as they once did (and neither do theirs) As usual, the Democrats have a real seen vs unseen problem with this concept.

"More money is good, so let's mandate more money for everyone!" That's essentially what you're saying. What you're missing is the big picture about where that money ultimately comes from.

Que the easy-money Corporate conspiracy theories and neo-pitchfork brigade.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote