People are scared of less jobs but that should be the goal.
We already reached the threshold that allows everybody to work only a fraction of what is considered normal, and still have everything we could ever want.
“Everybody needs a job” is a mindset that should have been obsolete for a long time.
Joke’s on us, fast food jobs were replaced by touch screens anyway.
Corporations were bragging about record profits not that long ago, and then basically admitted to price gouging. Folks are extremely underpaid in most areas. Not shocked at all.
Minimum wage goes up -> Prices go up
The gap between wage and costs isn’t changing.
I also repeat conservative talking points when I have no idea what I’m talking about.
Wait wait, I’m wrong. I’m not an idiot.
Suppliers will charge whatever gives them the highest profit, and if their costs go up by x, said optimal pricepoint goes up by x/2, assuming a linear correlation between price and demand.
Not everyone is min wage, so the price increase will never be as high as the wage increase. Unless a products entire supply chain is only min wage workers.
What’s actually driving the price increase? Employees or corporate profit?
You just blow in from stupid town or what?
Our corporation funded a study that says this study is wrong. /s
No shit
Have we not known this for years?
Card & Kreuger has been held up by right wingers for ages as evidence to the contrary but it’s a very bad study
I’ve always used it as an example of when oversimplified chalkboard economics don’t match experimental reality.
Are the “oversimplified chalkboard economics” basically the businesses winging about having to pay people more?
What follows is incorrect
It’s a price floor, which creates a deadweight loss.
Since we’re also consumers, it’s a net loss.
Tbf, economics has to presume inequality to be non existent. If they dont, inequality is the overriding factor that makes all the other forces at play pale in comparison. So, they remove inequality.
Again, tbf, in a world with no inequality, where only the very best and brightest rise to the top and not just a endless stream of nepo babies, with whole institutions in place to ensure a lack of social mobility, a national minimum wage would be a bad idea. Just like tax breaks for the rich would fix any problem you had, in that fake - made up world that could never exist.
But, as you allude to, in the real world, things are very different.
Should it not just be integrated in to the supply cost?
Yes, but how exactly that distorts the market is counterintuitive.
Who even gets paid minimum wage? My kids started at fast food for several dollars above minimum, to where I’m not even sure what the point is.
Basically every “tipped” job gets paid minimum wage (or below).
You’re observing a snapshot period and confusing it for the whole.
Wages don’t go down though, or at least I’ve never seen it. And rarely have I seen wages sit at minimum, indicating that the market wage isn’t linked to the federal minimum wage. I understand that this may be different in other parts of the country. This is just my experience.
I got paid minimum wage when I was a supermarket cashier.
That “Adobe Stock” photo from the article is just some generic AI crap.
The door is wide open for a stock photo business right now, I guess.
Isn’t that kinda what AI images should be used for? Meaningless stock images?
No?
People are paying for those pictures, either as a subscription or per-use basis. They’re paying a rate to reflects work; photographers, models, rights - all kinds of different costs up front. None of that exists with AI.
It’s sort of like sitting down to a restaurant, ordering and paying, and then getting served food from your own home. Some horseshit Kraft mac and cheese and fish sticks.
A better comparison would be if the menu at the restaurant had AI art on it. It doesn’t matter, I’m not there for the menu art. The menu is not the main product I’m there to consume. It’s the food. The menu art is there to give a quick visual and because it looks marginally better than a blank piece of paper, nothing more. Whether it was painted by an artist or created in 2 minutes by someone with Stable Diffusion makes no difference in the food quality.
If people are really losing money because others no longer want to use their work for meaningless article headers, I don’t know what to say. Maybe get in line with phone operators and VCR repair men?
I wasn’t really arguing for the artist. I was arguing that Adobe is ripping people off by selling horseshit when the prices they’re charging are for a different product entirely. A more expensive one.
If they want to make AI stock photos available they should have a different tier. It should be cheaper. They shouldn’t just mix it in with their regular stock photos. It’s a different product and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.
Hop on Adobe stock right now and search for something. Half of the results will be AI-generated. There’s a search filter that can exclude them.
Ff is down because they got greedy and raised prices so that their food wasn’t exceptionally cheaper than the other options anymore which is the main reason people eat there. If people can’t afford the food anymore, that’s not the employee compensation, that’s bad business decisions. There was plenty of profit to cover the wage increases and still have huge profits if sales had stayed the same.
The study is talking about overall numbers of jobs, not specific companies. Get fired from McDonalds closing a location, get a job with higher pay somewhere else that’s paying the new minimum wage, is a net zero result.
McDonalds is gutted that their 2024 earnings are on track for only a 5% increase over 2023, which saw a 10% gross profit increase for the year.
Remember when there was a “shoplifting crime wave” that it turned out was just profits were down so they had to blame something?
Increasing minimum wage puts more money in the economy which people will spend which puts more money in businesses so they can pay their people more putting more money in the economy.
The only reason the wealthy don’t like this is because their money passes through the hands of the unclean masses instead of going directly into their offshore tax haven accounts.
The only reason the wealthy don’t like this is because
theirour money passes through the hands of the unclean masses instead of going directly into their offshore tax haven accounts.Ftfy
Well corrected.
Yep.
Give a rich man a dollar and all you’ve done societally is remove a dollar from the economy. If you instead make him give that money to his employees things change, but cause poor people actually need money and will spend it.
You give a poor person that dollar through increased minimum wage and they spend it at a business. That business now makes more money, which is passed on to its employees through the increased minimum wage, and they spend that dollar again.
And again.
And again.
That dollar you took from the rich and gave to the poor drove a lot more than a dollar’s economic activity.
OH - and it’s also taxed every time it changes hands, so it also brings in more than its initial value in tax revenue.
In Brazil, a LinkedIn “influencer” was roasted because he said the if you a 100 to a rich person they would invest it and “make it” into 120 in a year, while of you give the same 100 to a poor person, that money is “lost” immediately.
Maybe an analogy makes it clearer: the economy is the blood flow, formed by services and products. Money if the fat in the blood. It’s necessary for the system and without it it doesn’t work right. But if it forms a clot then there a problem.
I’m not sure how true this is, the rich still invest huge amounts of their money in businesses, while they shouldn’t have that much to begin with it’s still in the economy for the most part
Well, there are three points on that:
- Business investment doesn’t need money from the rich, it just needs any money, resources and manpower. Shareholding means lots of non-rich can supply the money (it’s not the rich that are needed, it’s the money) and structures like Cooperatives mean that many businesses can be made by people just pooling their work and resources. Theoretically at least mass Shareholding should make for a more robust business environments because many people investing should have a lot more variety (hence making the whole more resilience to the kind of unforeseen changes that cause Crashes) in terms of what’s invested in and the investment objectives than just a few people.
- The money being too concentrated together with the current Ownership Laws (mainly Land Ownership, though in some areas also Intelectual Property) actually crowd out most news businesses because of how expensive it is to launch most business ventures, not just directly but even in terms of the founders themselves being able to afford being out of work whilst they launch a business. Notice how even in big cities but especially in smaller cities and even less urban space, stores are closing and those spaces remain closed for months or even years. The money and property concentrated in fewer hand has the leverage to demand huge rents from the rest of Society to be able to use those thing they’ve locked-in through ownership and that’s killing lots of business at the start stage and even stopping the business ideas themselves from ever being put in practice. It’s “funny” that the rich having all the money creates a situation were so much money is needed to launch a successful business that it can only work with funding from the rich.
- The actual value of more investment depends on were the bottleneck is in the Economy: supply side or consumer side. There is no point in adding more businesses (i.e. Production) if there’s a lack of demand (i.e. Consumption) because median incomes are too low. If you look around (just notice companies nickel & diming customers) we currently have a lack of demand, not of supply, so money going into investment just makes the problem worse whilst money going (via better wages) into consumption would help.
The dollars are soiled by passing through the hands of the poor, though.
Don’t worry, the rich are here to laundry the money until it is clean again.
Card and Kreuger found this out when they did a large study back in the 90s when each state could finally set its own minimum wage.
From the abstract of the actual study
We find that most studies to date suggest a fairly modest impact of minimum wages on jobs: the median OWE estimate of 72 studies published in academic journals is -0.13, which suggests that only around 13 percent of the potential earnings gains from minimum wage increases are offset due to associated job losses. Estimates published since 2010 tend to be closer to zero.
No, but it makes business owners more likely to outsource or replace with AI.
“More likely”
If these people could be replaced with AI already, they would be. It doesn’t matter how much or little they make.
Guess we need to get rid of business owners then.
So if you owned a business, you’d like to be removed from that position?
I do own a business. I’m the sole and only employee, as it should be unless I want to establish a partnership.
So you’re self employed. This study doesn’t apply to you.
It’s going to blow your mind once you find out about cooperatives.
Or that businesses that employ people in the classic employer-employee way are effectively price-fixing the labor market. The larger they are, the stronger the effect.
It’s going to blow your mind to find out how often new businesses fail.
Are you just spouting our random things thinking it makes your earlier point more valid?
How many new business fail?
???
What, exactly, do you think your point is?
No. They’re aiming for that regardless.
None of the people uttering that lie will care about this news.
