• SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ok so you’re simultaneously assuming 0% of customers are looking at the eclipse and 100% of the cashiers want to go out and look at it?

    It feels like you’re just making up scenarios here. Seems more likely similar proportions of both cashiers and customers would be out looking at it.

    Now take for example a grocery store. Did the eclipse mean that people are going to eat less? Like because there were fewer cashiers, they suddenly decided they aren’t going to buy food this week? I’m pretty sure demand for food (or any other good) disappeared because the eclipse. So what’s the actual economic cost? Some businesses would have been less busy for about 20 minutes but then more busy later on.

    Thinking that a 20 minute pause in production is going to significantly impact demand is what seems silly to me. But then all of this supply side economics style of thinking is silly to me.

    • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not assuming anything, I’ve been responding to your whole argument of:

      People aren’t being paid for every moment they remain on task. They’re getting paid for works completed! They’re getting paid for doing their job. They don’t have to be at their desk/station/site every single moment to remain productive!

      There clearly are a whole section of jobs where being on call, available, or present at specific continous times is vital to their “productivity” or value.

      You just want to pretend everyone works a 9-5 office desk job and can work at their own pace.