No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by opaz__ on Jan 19, 2019 10:37:01 PM
Unfortunately, when you make labour more expensive, the market demands less of it
Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Dementor - 19 Jan 2019 22:44:21 (#1 of 14)

The most ethical way to run an economy is to provide goods and services as efficiently as possible, because ... there are always more consumers (the whole population) than there are producers (workers) - hence to maximise what is available the economy must be run in the primary interest of consumers.

That's wot I reckon - and I'd be genuinely interested in understanding if and why it's wrong.

opaz__ - 19 Jan 2019 22:45:57 (#2 of 14)

Agreed, and how do you make it efficient?

Oh look - the market!

Dementor - 19 Jan 2019 22:49:56 (#3 of 14)

Properly regulated with environmental and social externalities priced in, yeah.

opaz__ - 19 Jan 2019 22:52:13 (#4 of 14)

mustn't forget about the externalities, obvs

opaz__ - 19 Jan 2019 22:53:01 (#5 of 14)

Venezuela burgers yum

Ebadlun - 20 Jan 2019 01:20:59 (#6 of 14)

The minimum cost of a worker is what that worker needs to live on - otherwise the state must step in with assistance, effectively subsidising your shit planning.

foghorn - 20 Jan 2019 01:56:06 (#7 of 14)

It depends on whether you wish to take advantage of a local ecomony somewhere else to undercut it. But the local economy must be able to function to do that. Or you kill the golden goose.

BenSawbridg - 20 Jan 2019 08:03:41 (#8 of 14)

Poor old opaz will be rueing that second bottle of Blossom Hill this morning.

CarlosFandango - 20 Jan 2019 08:34:13 (#9 of 14)

effectively subsidising your shit planning.

Or, and probably more frequently, the state must suck up the cost of its own shit planning, it's own failure to regulate and incentivise, and its near-total incomprehension and paralysis when it comes to dealing with external costs.

Destroy jobs, or even whole industries, in areas where a generation or two ago people were promised a bright new future, and then blame them for being in the shit. Genius.

BenSawbridg - 20 Jan 2019 08:43:19 (#10 of 14)

Well that depends whether you're going to hold companies morally responsible for their own actions, or whether you'll view them as snakes in a sack, to be managed carefully and at your own risk.

Peacock - 20 Jan 2019 08:45:42 (#11 of 14)

gcse economics. demand and supply.

RosyLovelady - 20 Jan 2019 08:56:27 (#12 of 14)

The state is accustomed to absorbing the costs of its own mistakes. Mistakes like not deregulating the banks enough to make us all rich ... oh.

Dementor - 20 Jan 2019 10:38:15 (#13 of 14)

The minimum cost of a worker is what that worker needs to live on - otherwise the state must step in with assistance, effectively subsidising your shit planning.

The function of a worker in an organisation is to efficiently perform some necessary task, Ebadlun.

I don't 'get' why people believe it's the duty of an individual employer to meet the difference between the economic worth of that task and what income a worker needs to live in a particular country - surely that something that should be socialised? If it isn't socialised then you're just setting up a driver to automate it and make the worker redundant.

Also, what do you mean by "shit planning"? Some tasks are necessary (or just desirable) but only add little value - that's not a failure of planning or design.

rgtstoppedcounting - 05 Mar 2019 07:57:23 (#14 of 14)

The minimum cost of a worker is what that worker needs to live on - otherwise the state must step in with assistance, effectively subsidising your shit planning.

You think the market should decide absolutely everything then, free of distortions like social safety nets?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Politics