- cross-posted to:
- funny@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- funny@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Corporate Headline: “Why you might not want lower prices or higher wages after all”
Me, waving a giant Abolish Money placard: “Bitch, I know!”
Bell Riots need to fuckin happen already so we can get back on track for the Star Trek utopia timeline
I’m sure the argument is wages. Lower prices means lower wages or less jobs.
Except… 1. not really, not in the long term and 2. it happens anyway
The endgame is that very few people have jobs, and almost nobody can afford to live. Yet a handful of people have so much money that their great great great grandchildren will never have to work a day in their life. It’s a slow burn genetic genocide, except that being rich doesn’t mean superior genetics. It means that cruelty and luck are considered genetic traits. And they will continue to use that as a basis for superiority, and kill off anyone below them because it benefits their corporate profits.
You’re gonna need to add like 100 more greats there. These billionaires make more money out of just loans annually than most countries’ GDPs. Then their children can continue making even more after their deaths without ever working a day.
Agreed, it’s basically feudalism. These shitbags believe they’re better because they’re born better off. It’s like the boys, they feel superior and we’re just pawns for their use. But not one of them have had to wield a weapon to defend their position. We need to make them earn their position.
3 If everything costs 25% less with a 10% wage drop that makes everyone effectively richer.
Also, lower wages don’t do shit if all the companies revenue goes to the exec c suite
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Euthanized through taxation? Why not euthanize through example? Meet this level of greed and your life is over. Like, this is the line, cross it and die. And if you cross that line, your children don’t inherit your wealth. It gets sent to the people hurt by the inherit loss of wages.
I don’t see our ideas as mutually exclusive.
The capital punishment for corporations would function basically as you described, if they’re convicted for heinous behaviour, their capital/assets are seized, and the proceeds from their auction are given to their victims.
Agreed, but I demand the erasure of those people from existence. They’re harmful to the existence of our society and population. They need to be removed from society if it is going to continue to function. Otherwise everything fails.
Bloody well said mate
I’m fine if the prices stay high, as long as my wage is increased the same amount.
They won’t do that either so…
It’s not even lower prices, it’s more “not increase much faster than salaries”.
You ESPECIALLY don’t want that, and the reasons will shock you!
But there are reasons why you shouldn’t reason for the shocking reason because of…reasons.
No, they will literally shock you into submission. The cops all have Tasers.
I mean, we already know that WaPo is the mouth piece for Baldy Bezos.
I mean, I’m perfectly fine with high prices as long as wages rise faster then the prices do…
Tomorrow’s article, “New trend among corporate America: Vibe volunteering allows companies to augment staff with enthusiastic citizens who simply want to work without any recognition”
This is exactly how they’re going to spin slavery when they eventually succeed in bringing it back.
Cough convict labor cough cough.
Let me guess, deflation disincentivizes consumption so it can lead to a feedback effect that leads to recession?
Pay and wages tied to the rate of inflation would probably preferable; I’m sure congress will get right on it…
Lower prices incentivize consumption though, right? It definitely hurts profits, but people buy lots more pointless shit if they can afford it.
Static lower prices might, but deflation does not. If prices will be lower tomorrow or next week, it’s wiser to hold on to your money and buy later.
Do people really do that? If lettuce got back in the range I was used to paying before, I feel like I’d start buying it again as soon as I noticed.
There have been multiple real world examples of deflation so we don’t really have to guess.
There was a somewhat famous example starting in 1929 and extending through the 30s.
It’s less about whether you wait to buy food and more whether you decide to stretch your junker car out as long as possible, or put off home improvements because you’ll save thousands, or decide to put off capital investments and sit on your cash till it’s worth more.
Yes and no. In a vacuum it would be nice if goods generally seen as consumer necessities with lower price sensitivity (people need to buy food regardless of price) stayed cheap, but I think the received understanding in mainstream economics is that we can’t just lower food prices without also lowering other prices—and that lowering prices across the board is going to be a sign of deflation which will change consumption habits and potentially exacerbate other economic issues.
I’m not defending this view, but just trying to frame that I think the general view of economists is that grocery deflation is probably going to be inevitably linked to other falling prices which, as a whole, is a concern
This is also important in the context of investment. The general understanding is that even if input costs are falling (i.e., land, lumber, labor), why would anybody invest in new housing construction if deflation is going to mean the sale price is lower than the cost? At a macro level deflation means that your money increases in value without taking on any risk so instead of investing in the market or a potential new venture, just hold on to it and it’s be more valuable without the change that the stock declines or the venture goes belly up.
The concise framing of this is that “a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future” because of inflation so you should invest to, at minimum, keep buying power in real terms constant. But with deflation this is not true so business sees simply hoarding capital as a safer bet than deploying it into things that theoretically create job and drive growth/prosperity since a dollar tomorrow will be more valuable than today.
I appreciate the explanation and acknowledge that it is more nuanced than I wish.
But right now I’m burned out and angry…
What you’re saying sounds like lower prices would be good for normal people, but we can’t do it because businesses and rich fucks would ruin it for everyone.
Like, I’m not investing in land, lumber, or labor. I just want to eat lettuce.
I totally hear that. And again, not trying to defend this view simply present the convention understanding.
I think to your last point: you may not be directly investing, but if you have a retirement 401(K) or IRA or pension, you are linked into this. And if you don’t have retirement savings or other investments, your employer is making these calculations, or the companies that hire your company, or so on up the chain. Even if you work retail grocery and will be, basically fine in terms of steady employment, deflation/falling prices likely means mass un/underemployment for people in a lot of other industries.
Lower prices may be good for consumers in some ways, but they have knock-on effects that are are generally seen as significantly and negatively outweighing the positive of lower prices.
Sticking with building as an industry likely to see decreased investment, that puts keeps construction workers out of the job. It keeps those employed in trucking, lumber, architects, &c. out of work. Then the construction companies don’t have as much other consumption needs to companies that sell accounting software, project management software, engineering and site planning work contractors lose business and cut employment.
For cheaper lettuce: why would a farmer invest in planting? Between fuel, seed, fertilizer, other equipment, and labor, they’re going to have invest and in a deflationaey environment they might be able to sell their lettuce for less than they invested. Why not just sit on that cash since it’ll be more valuable at the end of the season anyway and avoid the price risk and the risk of crop failure?
It’s worth noting that both the Great Depression and Great Recession saw deflation—with the Depression especially having depressed commodity and wage prices.
I realize I’m going a long way to saying “business is connected” which is…not revolutionary…but there are significant risk if the economy stops investing. This is why centeal banks all target a small level of inflation, such as the 2% target for the Fed: if money doesn’t become less valuable nobody will have any incentive to do anything economically productive.
That, of course, gets to the heart of the infinite growth issue with cancerous capitalism, but there is a theoretically consistent internal logic to it and why, without larger systemic changes, falling prices is worrying under the currently prevailing economic regime.
Sounds good in theory, but I don’t think that holds up in practice. For example, computers getting more affordable and powerful year by year didn’t stop people from buying them.
If the price is lower than the opportunity cost of NOT having it, people will buy it now, even if the product will be priced better next year.
And a large part of the price increases people are struggling with are food and housing. It’s not like you can wait till next year to eat or have a place to live.
It’s not like you can wait till next year to eat or have a place to live.
Eat? No waiting. Live? Sure! If prices were consistently falling because of deflation, and you knew renting for a year would allow you to buy a larger house with the exact same amount of money you hand in your hand, most would do that and rent for a bit.
For buying a house, isn’t it kinda like the stock market (except way less liquid). Yeah, the prices may go down in a year but someone may swoop in and buy while you’re sitting on the sidelines trying to time the bottom.
A specific house may be bought up, but others will be available that are similar for substantially less in a deflationary market.
Which would put inflationary pressure on rental prices which in turn would put inflationary pressure on property prices, and we are back to square one.
You’re absolutely right. The average Joe does not approach buying stuff with any kind of investment theory.
In practice, deflation always leads to recession.
As to computers, the price didn’t go down, we just got more bang for our buck, different thing altogether.
Sounds good in theory, but I don’t think that holds up in practice. For example, computers getting more affordable and powerful year by year didn’t stop people from buying them.
It absolutely delay people buying. If you held out for 6 more months, you’d get a substantially faster computer. Thats the second variable you’re introducing with this example. If your current computer was “fast enough” you’d wait, and people did.
It absolutely delay people buying. If you held out for 6 more months, you’d get a substantially faster computer.
That describes most of my life, under Moore’s Law.
I handled it in the traditional way: I bought what I wanted, and then I immediately cussed about my shitty timing to my friends the next day.
This is my problem with economics. You’re talking about theory and practice as if they’re the same thing. All consumers do not make perfectly rational choices. Hell, most don’t. This kind of theory only explains how rich people want you to think things work. It’s not how things work in the real world.
This is my problem with economics. You’re talking about theory and practice as if they’re the same thing.
Way back when, I used to sell computers and computer parts at retail. I assure you this was a regular conversation topic. “When is the Voodoo 4 graphics card coming out? 4 months? Okay I won’t buy the older Voodoo 3 now because I can make do with my Nvidia TNT2 until then.”
All consumers do not make perfectly rational choices.
No they don’t, nor or do they need to if you’re taking a macro view.
Hell, most don’t.
Are you saying:
- consumers NEVER make rational choices?
- consumers don’t make 100% rational choices 100% of the time a choice is available?
I disagree with the former, but I agree with you on the latter. None of that invalidates micro or macro economic theory.
This kind of theory only explains how rich people want you to think things work. It’s not how things work in the real world.
Many rich people get rich because this works. They also play dirty tricks to create the situations, but then again in those situations the theory works.
I’ll be the first to say economic theory is far from perfect and the deeper you go, the more complex, and potentially less reliable, it gets, but the basics are pretty sound.
An upgrade for a non-essential item you already own might prompt some of these considerations from some people. The decision to buy that item in the first place usually won’t, especially when you’re talking about essential items like groceries and housing, which is what the article in the OP is referring to.
only if you have money to hold to start with
But even if we could get relief on inflation, the prices wouldn’t keep decreasing by large amounts forever, right? It’s not like cars would eventually cost negative money and they pay you to take them. At some point the expected savings from waiting aren’t enough to justify the pain of doing without the shiny new thing.
It’s not like cars would eventually cost negative money and they pay you to take them.
While I accept your point, I feel conditioned to interrupt here and clarify that I absolutely would download a car. There was some unexpected confusion about this, at one point.
Okay. Carry on. Thank you.
This is what happens when billionaires are allowed to exist
What the what? Seriously? I’ve never in my life, thought you know what, I’d like to pay more money. This is true of rich or poor.
I did once for an artistic creation that exceeded my expectations. Rolled back and gave them an extra 80%, told them to raise their prices because they were cheating themself
The washington post is run by Israeli genocide apologists. Stop giving them attention.
I’m not a billionaire and I don’t want lower prices. I want an income, and I want higher prices overall, with some pockets of price stability on stuff like housing and locally grown vegetables. Housing and local vegetables (in some areas) are very rare examples of things that have gone too far with price increases. Prices on most things are too low due to anti-environmental subsidies.
I want a society that subsidizes protecting the environment, not destroying it. I want the cost of my phone to help cover cleaning up after the factory that made it, instead of having the cost of my house and food help cover cleaning up the news headlines about pollution.
I want my phone to be $5000 and last 10 years while the cheapest shittiest phone that lasts 1 year still can’t be less than $4000 (due to taxes) so that everyone saves up for 10 years to buy the $5000 phone and nobody fucking bothers making shit that only lasts a year.
And I want to pay for my phone in the transaction where I buy the phone, not in other transactions where I comply with a housing system that keeps others homeless and some of my money goes towards stuff like phones and shipping routes for them.
And as long as I have no income, all prices are too high for me to begin with, so it’s all a moot point if you’re not going to let me have an income.
Bro/sis, before the tariffs I was able to build a mid end PC for $1000, it does way more than a smart phone. There is no logical reason why a smart phone should cost $5000. You’re getting down voted because the numbers you are throwing out are completely disconnected from reality. Manufacturing costs for a smartphone are like $500 tops. Another source on manufacturing costs. The actual people assembling them make something along the lines of $3-4 an hour, and that’s being generous.
There is no logical reason why a smart phone should cost $5000
Except people keep buying phones with planned obsolescence, and taxing phones like $4000 each seems like a good solution, as I said. People might finance them in real life instead of saving up for them if we did this, but it should really make a dent in the problem either way.
You’re getting down voted because the numbers you are throwing out are completely disconnected from reality.
That’s incorrect. They’re just nice round example numbers for illustrative purposes, but not disconnected from reality at all.
Manufacturing costs for a smartphone are like $500 tops.
You have manufacturing costs confused with costs for the manufacturer. When I subsidize the manufacturer every time I pay rent, those are not the same number.
The actual people assembling them make something along the lines of $3-4 an hour, and that’s being generous.
And they probably live in systems like the system I live in here in the US, where that income can’t really be owned by the worker, it’s owned by the banking system or the “state” and the worker has some say in how a percentage of it is spent (what food they want to eat, what kind of phone they want, etc)
Hence why I mentioned that as long as you don’t let me have an income, all prices are too high for me, and this is all a moot point
The workers deserve a better wage than $3-4, and that’s a reason the phone should probably be more expensive, not less
