-CraZed- said:
Well I do work 12 hours a day (I'm a nurse for a corporate health network) and when I was in the military I worked probably 12-14 hours a day and when you figured it out to hourly wages it was very low (less than minimum wage) and I lived just fine. If I am not paid what I need or am worth I take my talents else where. I know I don't need any union or government to argue for my worth. In fact I believe I am more skilled and worth more pay than many of those with whom I am employed and should be allowed to negotiate for my pay. Unfortunately due to union rules etc. I can't even negotiate for my pay. I MUST take the pay rate assigned to me (secondary/tertiary consequence of unionization). If you think greed has nothing to do with the minimum wage on the part of politicians and the labor force you are mistaken. Greed is universal my friend. So that is a wash. What it comes down to is the unintended consequences of actions with thought. Most people only think of the primary consequence of an action in the case of minimum wage it would be on the surface higher pay for the worker. Well "that's the point" you'll say. But when you look at secondary and even tertiary effects you see that the minimum wage causes higher prices and fewer workers hired. And it doesn't stop there. If your costs went up and you weren't expecting an up-tick in extra income how would you manage? You would cut costs. You'd fire the gardener, or the nanny, shut off your gamefly account or trim back your grocery bill. All of those actions cut the income of other people. So with your POV you are being greedy since you are now cutting the income of others. Don't you see the relationship? Its the same for businesses, large and small. Labor is the single largest cost of ANY business. Medical benefits is right up there and then there are the other costs involved. Then there is the cost of marketing, advertising, navigating regulations and compliance etc. etc. etc. For many businesses yes a slight raise in labor costs can have a large effect on business. I'm not saying companies are benevolent because they aren't they want your money and they want you to spend it on them. But to say only they are capable of greed is ignorant. You have a simplistic view of business (probably because you don't understand it) in that you believe they have massive profits. Yes many large corporations DO have a lot of money. They have a lot of money because they supply goods and services that a lot of people use or consume. Most of them operate of very thin profit margins however. Not to mention many of these companies need to amass large amounts of capital to be able to weather down years and/or increased costs etc. Look at SONY for an example if they didn't have a lot of capital how could they continue to run after losing billions? Most companies would fold after losing just thousands. Which leads to fewer jobs. |
I just don't like how workers are exploited in developing countries. They risk there lives to work in filthy workhouses and factories to make goods for us, that we want, but don't need. And then all they get for there efforts is barely enough money to feed and cloth there own families in there little shacks. A completely free market damages (India proves it, with it's massive slums) society as wealth disparity increases and poverty increases, some regulations are needed to ensure workers can get a half decent wage and work in a safe environment and actually reasonable working hours (8 hours a day) to give them and their families a decent chance at success in life. Poverty is a trap and the free market does nothing to help fix that problem. And you expect to individually negiotiate your salary? good luck with that!
Without a minimum wage, business' pay as little as they like to maximise profits at the expense of everyone else. Obviously, with increases in the minimum wage there is a risk that inflation becomes higher, but surely if people have a liveable wage, they can buy more which will help the economy anyway. And as for worker benefits, in a country where everything is privatised, you seriously need these benefits. Stuff like private healthcare is very expensive, companies can afford to cover it. Government is just trying to have a minimum quality of life for it's citizens, although this has failed since the economy went stale and unemployment went up.
I admit sony is doing badly, but that's more to do with there bad business decisions over the years than increasing labour costs. I'm sure any other company, like Nike could make it's trainers in America or europe and it would still have profits, albeit less.
But If you think that government involvement should be minimal in the economy, then at least look at the German mittelstand model before dismissing it.
Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)
'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin
Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030
