• Book273
    2
    Actually, with regards to energy expenditure compared to return, they likely make more than Jeff, per hour. Good system.
  • Isaac
    13
    with regards to energy expenditure compared to return, they likely make more than Jeff, per hour.Book273

    Are you really that fucking stupid? Jeff earns about £1 billion a week. Out of work benefits are about £300.

    That's a few million times more. There isn't enough energy turnover in the human body for Jeff to be working a million times harder that anyone who isn't in a coma.

    I'm fascinated to know what went through your head when you wrote that? I mean, did you think it through at all? Was there even a flicker of some rational process starting before you thought "Nah, I'll just stick to parroting bits of Ayn Rand"?
  • Cheshire
    12
    Yes, otherwise there will be an overabundance of inefficient firms in the marketplace; putting pressure on companies that do operate efficiently and pay fairly for their inputs. If minimum wage were truly unnecessary, then it would exist and no one would be making it. Full stop. But it is necessary because people that supply labor can be forced to accept below market value due to an inability to effectively negotiate against the better positioned buyer. It also prevents a race to the bottom where accepting greater suffering is a competitive edge in getting work.
  • Book273
    2
    you said jeff makes 800/hr. Based on your numbers, those that fill out the benefits and do nothing else make more hourly than he does. Deal with it. Work for a few minutes and get 300/wk. Good bloody deal! No way anyone makes that in the private sector. But hey, Maybe in the UK it takes 30+ hours a week to fill out the benefits paperwork, so 10/hr. Not so awesome then.

    It's ok though, you can keep on hating Jeff. And corporations. No worries eh!
  • Isaac
    13
    you said jeff makes 800/hr.Book273

    Turns out according to https://www.businessinsider.com/how-rich-is-jeff-bezos-mind-blowing-facts-net-worth-2019-4?r=US&IR=T it's more like a few million.

    But hey, Maybe in the UK it takes 30+ hours a week to fill out the benefits paperwork, so 10/hr. Not so awesome then.Book273

    What's required in the UK for eligibility for Universal Credit;

    https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/your-responsibilities

    Do you see just five minutes of paperwork there?


    You've not answered my question. What process did you follow to conclude that benefits recipients get a better return than rich CEOs? Did you look anything up, for example? Read any research? Did you do anything at all to check before just spewing up a load of shite to insult some the poorest people in our community?
  • fishfry
    9
    It kind of feels like minimum wage should be made livable that a person working 40 hours a week should require no public assistanceTiredThinker

    Look at it this way. If you give every renter in your town an extra $1000 a month, with no corresponding increase in the number of available rental units, they'll just bid up the cost of rents and eventually absorb the $1000. In other words you get inflation, which is simply an increase in the money supply with no corresponding increase in the availability of goods, resulting in higher prices.

    The only way to make such a system work long term, is to give everyone free money and simultaneously implement rigid price controls. And then you create shortages. If everyone has an extra $1000/month for rent and there is no increase in available housing and there is no increase in rents, the available units will quickly be filled to 100% capacity and there will be no place to live despite the extra money in your pocket.

    A variant of that argument applies to "price gouging" during emergencies. If the price of water goes way up, people are incented to supply more water. The price is higher, but everyone can get the water they need. If you artificially cap the price, then nobody gets "gouged," but many people can't get water; because there is no incentive for anyone to supply more water.

    Likewise congestion pricing for services like Uber. If there's a lot of demand, prices go up. Prices go up so more drivers decide to go out and work, providing the market with more supply. If you outlaw congestion pricing, everyone pays the same but you can't find a ride, because you've removed the incentive for drivers to go out and work instead of staying home.
  • Isaac
    13


    I don't follow you. You say...

    If everyone has an extra $1000/month for rent and there is no increase in available housing and there is no increase in rents, the available units will quickly be filled to 100% capacity and there will be no place to live despite the extra money in your pocket.fishfry

    ...and also...

    If the price of water goes way up, people are incented to supply more water.fishfry

    ...Which is it? When the demand goes up (the 'bidding up' of rents has to be demand led, yes?) you don't theorise an increase in supply to match demand (and so consequent deflation in the original price bubble), but when theorising about water, you assume rising prices will lead to a subsequent increase in supply. Either rising prices lead to an increase in supply or they don't. If they do, then rising rent prices is not a problem (supply will simply meet demand and so stabilise prices eventually), or rising prices are not necessarily met by rising supply (the market monopolises to limit supply in order to artificially sustain high prices), in which case caps on pricing could work perfectly well in some circumstances.

    Both are possible, but what seems unlikely is they the choice of which will conveniently happen to be whichever makes market economics sound most reasonable.
  • fishfry
    9
    ...Which is it?Isaac

    Two separate cases. If people have more money for rent but rents are capped then there's no incentive to provide more housing. If water is scarce and the price of water ISN'T capped then people have an incentive to provide more water. You compared the price-controlled case to the non-price-controlled case.

    In the real world we always see rent control accompanied by severe housing shortages. If you artificially cap the market price of housing, landlords don't build more of it.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.