Bernie's lesson in applied economics

[mjr]

When his staffers demand $15/hour, what does he do?

He lets people go, and tells others to not work more than 40 hours per week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUyS7WH3EYA

And as a side note, I predicted the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klMNwYPHkJA

Several of you said that thinking like this was ridiculous when I brought it up, but again I ask: Why not $25/hour? or $30/hour? or $50/hour?

[catcul]

When his staffers demand $15/hour, what does he do?

He lets people go, and tells others to not work more than 40 hours per week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUyS7WH3EYA

And as a side note, I predicted the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klMNwYPHkJA

Several of you said that thinking like this was ridiculous when I brought it up, but again I ask: Why not $25/hour? or $30/hour? or $50/hour?

I hope this hypocrite isn't nominated for the presidential election. He's as bad as the abusive CEOs he supposedly hates. As for the minimum wage, inflation will dictate $50/hour eventually. The minimum wage is too low now.

[s_stabeler]

I think there might be a misunderstanding in the debates around minimum wage. I don't think anybody disagrees that some companies would just cut staff numbers. However, it's a false equivalence to say that they have to.

as for why not $X arbitary figure, the point is that had the MW risen with inflation, it would have been higher than it is today. maybe not quite $15, but IIRC the MW in 1968 was $12 in 2019 dollars. The issue is that you can't live on MW, yet there are whole industries where it's difficult to get higher than MW. Not to mention the absolute farce that si requiring experience for a job- meaning the job can't realistically be filled by a teenager looking to earn a little extra money (and I often laugh at that, since in the stereotypical example- retail- then for many of the jobs that pay MW, some of the jobs have shifts that would include times when a teenager would be in school) yet the argument is that MW jobs aren't supposed to be lived on.

Essentially, the problem is that -wrongfully IMHO- a perception has developed that it's all right if someone has to work literally all their waking hours in order to scrape a living. Not to earn extra money for luxuries- just to afford the basics. That isn't right.

I'd also note that funnily enough, the situation where it's hard to find job security tends to correspond to a lack of protection of people's jobs. When France introduced a new type of contract that allowed much easier termination, guess what happened? most new jobs were of that type and it didn't even help the problem it was supposed to (youth unemployment)

So as you might have picked up, I do think that at-will employment is the main problem. It doesn't have to be impossible to fire someone, just that there needs to be a procedure for terminating someone's job that is stuck to. As opposed to now, where "manager got out the wrong side of bed this morning" is a good enough reason.

[mjr]

I think there might be a misunderstanding in the debates around minimum wage. I don't think anybody disagrees that some companies would just cut staff numbers. However, it's a false equivalence to say that they have to.

Of course they don't have to. But there's strong evidence that a lot will, and that they do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqHoYDOznkQ

[jackfaire]

Of course they don't have to. But there's strong evidence that a lot will, and that they do:

Some do sure. My former employer when looking at the increase in minimum wage that my state voted for claimed, "We're not going to be able to afford this we're going to have to lay people off" made more money and hired more people.

At the wages they pay now they have to give a steep discount 65% just so the employees can eat lunch there otherwise customers would wonder why the workers in a restaurant are eating food from elsewhere on their breaks and might find out the employees can't afford to eat there.

Some companies do short term cut their workforce when minimum wage is raised but they will see a profit increase and increase their workforce again later.

The problem is that in this country Capitalism has been perverted. Instead of seeking to develop a steady income stream corporations instead are looking for ever increasing profits.

Imagine if every month employees were yelling at their boss because this month's paycheck was the same amount as last month's paycheck.

Companies crash and burn looking for bigger profits while other companies that are just trying to continue existing do very well. Raising minimum wage has long term benefits and secures additional revenue by the company simply by making it so their own workers can utilize their products and services.

[mjr]

Capitalism has been perverted.

Capitalism, in and of itself, isn't the problem. I've said before that Capitalism is amoral, not immoral.

Instead of seeking to develop a steady income stream corporations instead are looking for ever increasing profits.

Sort of. But do you know why? I don't know that it's a matter of "ever increasing profits". What are the profit margins of a lot of these companies? Are they publicly held or private companies? I believe that publicly held companies are, by law, required to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. I could be mistaken. The answer isn't always "greed".

[jackfaire]

Capitalism, in and of itself, isn't the problem. I've said before that Capitalism is amoral, not immoral.

No shit. I didn't say Capitalism was the problem I said people twisting and warping capitalism was the problem. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sort of. But do you know why? I don't know that it's a matter of "ever increasing profits". What are the profit margins of a lot of these companies? Are they publicly held or private companies? I believe that publicly held companies are, by law, required to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. I could be mistaken. The answer isn't always "greed".

If a publicly held company is required by law to screw over their customers, their employees and their own long term success to ensure that the shareholders get a bigger payday then that is Greed.

What is best for the Shareholders in the long term along with everyone else is for a company to still exist in 20 years. We have companies that have been around for Centuries because they are designed to provide long term profits.

Creating and building companies to quickly hoard money is a perversion of Capitalism.

Please next time pay attention to my words. Just as a note I said a perversion of Capitalism you ignored that. You acted like I said Capitalism is bad. There's little point discussing anything with you if you're just going to ignore the actual content of what I say.

[mjr]

If a publicly held company is required by law to screw over their customers, their employees and their own long term success to ensure that the shareholders get a bigger payday then that is Greed.

Not necessarily. If you invest in a company, wouldn't you want some sort of return on that investment? In those cases, it seems like a supply/demand thing. Jeff Bezos doesn't have billions of dollars in a bank account. It's mostly "on paper" through stocks. His salary is something like $80K per year, if I remember right. Amazon stock is "in demand", that's why it's currently trading at $1767.38 per share.

Wal-Mart stock is trading at $119.53 per share.

401(k) accounts function in a similar manner. I have an account that I haven't actively put money into in a few years, but the amount in that account still grows. How is that greed?

Also, I'm fortunate enough at this point in my life to have a pretty good paying job. I'm in the low six-figure range. Is it greed for me to want to increase that?

If so, why?

Aside from that, how do you think they do things on Shark Tank? When one of the investors says, "I'll give you $100,000 for 20%", what do you think that means? It means they're asking for a return on their investment. Granted, some of the offers do seem greedy, but again, it's situational, and the person can always walk away from a deal before it's made.

What is best for the Shareholders in the long term along with everyone else is for a company to still exist in 20 years. We have companies that have been around for Centuries because they are designed to provide long term profits.

And lots of publicly-held companies still do exist. And have for decades.

Please next time pay attention to my words. Just as a note I said a perversion of Capitalism you ignored that. You acted like I said Capitalism is bad. There's little point discussing anything with you if you're just going to ignore the actual content of what I say.

No, I didn't ignore it. I used it to make a point. The point is that the problem isn't Capitalism. As I said, it's amoral. It's how people handle capitalism that can be the problem. Not every business is bad. Neither is every rich person. And I don't believe that every rich person is greedy. Do you?