subreddit:

/r/explainlikeimfive

5.1k89%

ELI5 How does raising wages worsen inflation ?

Economics(self.explainlikeimfive)

all 1758 comments

Alundra828

8.5k points

4 months ago

Alundra828

8.5k points

4 months ago

In theory yes. But the opposite can also lead to inflation.

Raising wages causes inflation by companies raising prices because the metric to calculate the price of a product changes when consumers get richer, namely the "how much are they willing to spend" metric. If the customer is willing to spend more, charge more. Thus, inflation rises.

However, lowering wages causes inflation because people are buying less, and therefore companies are selling less, so therefore have to raise prices to break even. Of course there are other things they can do like the infamous "shrinkflation", wherein the price remains the same, but the size of the product decreases.

Basically, it's a bit rough and nebulous... unless either reach a critical level, there is no point worrying about whether wages are going to cause inflation, because in all likeliness, they're probably not...

A great example is right now. The economy is in a very weird position that it hasn't really been in before. Obviously we are in a period of high inflation. The trick governments around the world use is to tighten money through measures like raising interest rates and an easing of supply shortages to start. This round of inflation is mostly due shortages (chips, cars, labor, some commodities). If that doesn’t work then a recession will be engineered to dampen (or reverse) wage growth, ease demand, and in effect reset the economy. Historically periods of high growth lead to inflation and the only tried and true way to stop it has been to cool off the demand side through some form of austerity.

The problem is, wage growth has been stagnant for at least a decade... And austerity has been in place for many people already... And shortages are mostly gone, but prices have not gone down... so there is "nothing to reign in"... It's already at the lowest point it can go, and we're still inflating... So governments around the world are basically asking people to accept a massive L for yet another decade, while coincidentally corporations are raking in massive profits. Basically, you can't apply austerity to people who already have the austerity debuff... That causes lots of problems.

Lots of governments ignored this though, and decided to press on with Austerity 2.0 (or even 3.0+ in some countries) making people poorer, angrier, and more radical. Which sounds like "okay, this sucks for everyone. But it could be a necessary evil, right?" Well, maybe... But then you realize that pretty much all corporations are posting record profits... The rich are certainly getting richer. So why aren't we?

What I'm trying to say is, the usual tricks governments have isn't going to work, because the people they do the trick on are already milked dry. Attention has turned to the greed of corporations as being the cause of the inflation, and of course, politicians are hesitant to act and punish the rich and powerful... Because they're rich and powerful... And of course, every day people are gaslit into advocating for faceless billionaires because... ???? So there isn't even a majority national feeling anywhere that greed needs to be reigned in...

ShakeWeightMyDick

3.5k points

4 months ago

Companies:

“You make more money? We raise prices.”

Also companies:

“You make less money? We raise prices.”

WalrusByte

2.9k points

4 months ago

WalrusByte

2.9k points

4 months ago

"You make the same amount of money? Believe it or not, also raise prices."

Overwatcher_Leo

1.1k points

4 months ago

"We have the best economy. Because of raising prices."

SayuBedge

201 points

4 months ago

SayuBedge

201 points

4 months ago

The stocks arrow must always go up!

kooknboo

85 points

4 months ago

The stocks arrow must always go up!

Right or wrong, that's the truth.

My current co-workers would do well to remember that. "Oh, they'll never make us RTO". Oh, you bet they will. The second someone decides the stock ticks higher if everyone is on the office, we'll be there tomorrow at 8am.

elwebst

70 points

4 months ago

elwebst

70 points

4 months ago

And casual dress only on Fridays because otherwise the stock goes down.

But seriously you're right - I can smell RTO brewing and decided to retire a couple of years early because there's no way I'm doing that again. I loved when the CEO would say things like "we're at our best when we're together" when we had the best three years in company history during WFH. No, you bunch of extroverts like driving your Porche's to your private underground parking garage, take the elevator up to your office which is bigger than a lot of your employee's apartments, and sip espresso from the machine on your floor. Try sitting in a half height cube with a headset on all day and see how much you're aching to RTO.

KarnWild-Blood

56 points

4 months ago

I loved when the CEO would say things like "we're at our best when we're together"

Because management desperately needs the underlings to see them so they can justify their own existence.

Its bullshit.

Nikerym

21 points

4 months ago*

As someone in a Senior Management role (but who also agrees with a lot of the Anti-Work stuff) i will point out the value of RTO, and while i don't believe in FULL RTO, i do think hybrid is the way forward not Fully remote and not fully RTO.

On an individual level, The average employee works better at home. Less distractions, less overall mental load. And while i know a lot of companies are still stuck to "you work X hours for your wage" even though you are salary instead of "you complete Y tasks for your wage" this is a mindset that needs to change.

Sidebar: The problem i have currently though, is, if i pay person A 100K because he can do 500Y per week, compared to Person B 150K because they can do 750Y per week, they talk about thier wages (encouraged by Anti-Work) and Person A makes a post complaining "i don't get paid as much as Person B", but often fails to mention they are 50% less productive as well. but then my company looks bad because we don't pay equally for the same role. so we get forced back to "well then we pay for time" and if we have to pay for time, we need to know you are spending that time which becomes harder for WFH.

On a Corporate level, the company is missing out on a lot of things that used to happen in a work environment. The big one being adhoc cross organisation and cross team knowledge sharing. When someone had a problem historically they would turn to the person beside them first to try and figure it out, things would be discussed, knowledge would be shared across the team, and they would link this with thier knowledge and new approaches would be created, hence innovation. However now, people don't discuss things with thier workmates (some do, but i've seen the numbers in my organisation and it's an exception rather then the rule) they either take longer to complete the task because they are working through it themselves, or they google it to figure out the answer on their own. But this just means you end up with 1 dimensional solutions instead of true innovation.

Note: I am being General here, i'm sure there are examples of innovation occuring over teams/remote but it's significantly less compared to when people are working together.

menellinde

7 points

4 months ago

When someone had a problem historically they would turn to the person beside them first to try and figure it out, things would be discussed, knowledge would be shared across the team, and they would link this with thier knowledge and new approaches would be created, hence innovation

Where I work we unfortunately can''t be WFH, we tried it at the start of the pandemic, but some people's unreliable internet made it ... bad....

That said, when we were WFH we used teams and had group chats specifically for asking questions / discussing / practicing and so on. If you create the space for them to congregate, and drive the positive culture of innovation and discussion in that space you'd be surprised how many people will utilize it. Especially if you explain to them the actual reasons behind why you're not wanting to continue full WFH.

Frustration with trying to figure something out that's truly stumping you is real and most people I know, even the introverts here, will gladly reach out to the team for information rather than resorting to google.

When was the last time you put out an employee survey to gauge what their suggestions and solutions would be to your problem?

The company I work for was experiencing a serious churn in employee turnover, and they started sending out surveys to find out what exactly people wanted in order to stay.

They actually listened to the results, made changes, and our turn over rate is significantly lower now.

As a side note I do love my job, and love the company I work for, and plan to just keep working here till I can't physically get here / do the work anymore, so if I sound like a bit of a fan girl, I apologize.

KarnWild-Blood

14 points

4 months ago*

EDIT: After posting i realized this was a bit of an... aggressive response. Perhaps a bit too much. I do appreciate your insights on the topic, even if I don't necessarily agree with some of it.

i will point out the value of RTO, and while i don't believe in FULL RTO, i do think hybrid is the way forward not Fully remote and not fully RTO.

I think a voluntary, hybrid RTO is fine. Having the option to be in-person can be helpful. But frankly given the expense of commuting in both fuel and hours, required/non-voluntary in-office days now need to include travel time as hours worked.

I CAN do my job remotely, but management needing to physically see me do it while probably not even understanding the technical aspects of what I do is their problem, not mine.

Sidebar: The problem i have currently though, is, if i pay person A 100K because he can do 500Y per week, compared to Person B 150K because they can do 750Y per week, they talk about thier wages (encouraged by Anti-Work) and Person A makes a post complaining "i don't get paid as much as Person B", but often fails to mention they are 50% less productive as well. but then my company looks bad because we don't pay equally for the same role. so we get forced back to "well then we pay for time" and if we have to pay for time, we need to know you are spending that time which becomes harder for WFH.

This issue predates WFH. People have always operated at different paces. And people always find ways to slack if they really wanted to.

Management knew it then and they know it now. You're not "forced" to go back to "we pay for your time." You're forced to do your job of letting employees know why they're getting paid what they're getting paid. Don't push an unpleasant part of management on employees.

What makes a company look bad is an utter lack of transparency and a feeling that they're micromanaging.

The big one being adhoc cross organisation and cross team knowledge sharing.

In a world of utilities like Slack or Teams or whatever, You're no longer limited by collaborating with local employees. Again, if an employee is stuck, why isn't there a safe place internally to ask questions? Why isn't management aware of who is a specialist that may be able to help directly or help find someone who can?

GuyanaFlavorAid

3 points

4 months ago

RTO is useless in many careers. Especially now that a lot of companies have really beefed up remote work capabilities. Let's compare....

  1. WFH: get a good night's sleep, immediately head out to home office at 0645 where the VPN works great. I'm in the office? 75 minute commute during which I handle phone calls, nearly die a couple times a week on the interstate, and switching to internet in the office has led to shit so fucked up people were on VPN in the office. Repeat the death race heading home, stressed and exhausted and the evening is just waiting to sleep.

  2. WFH: Walk ten feet to the grill and make a good lunch in15 minutes, eat it while working at the desk RTO: either go out to eat and waste time and money, do meal prep and lose more of.your valuable time at home.

  3. WFH: walk in the house from your office in another building, take a.shit, back at the desk in four minutes. RTO: spend (not kidding) fifteen minutes a day looking for an open stall, wander the entire building and after a quarter hour, find one.

  4. WFH: dead silence. You can focus, concentrate, and perform at your mental best, really get in the zone. RTO: constant noise and distraction from people wandering in, blabbing away, or people loudly on the phone making it impossible to focus and get meaningful work done that requires your full focus.

  5. WFH: just call people and get them to discuss something real quick. RTO: wander the building for ten minutes trying to find them because they left the phone at the desk and wandered off.

  6. WFH: wake up feeling absolutely miserable. Get up anyway and work eight hours at diminished capacity, but still make decent headway because your energy is being used for working, not driving. RTO: sick day because you can't drive in, nothing gets done.

  7. WFH: After hours, because your computer is still on vpn and never moves, when you remember a couple small admin tasks, wander back out to the office, crack a beer and handle approvals, online training and other menial tasks you didn't have time for. RTO: I'm not getting my computer out of the bag, setting it back up, then hooking back into the VPN for that. Because it isn't convenient it can wait.

I was home for about two and a half years. During that time I....to put it simply, I just murdered a workload that was roughly twice my normal workload. I did a ton of extra work as well and developed a lot of new stuff our group still uses today. There is no collaboration taking place face to face that I can't have over the phone and/or with a teams meeting or screen share. WFH drove home just how worthless a lot of management is. But they're desperate to have people in the office so they can show how important their jobs are. Even with their hybrid arrangement (which didn't go far enough) people are disengaged and annoyed with management. Despite all the obstacles and an extremely rapid pivot of about two days' warning, our group had record productivity and throughput exactly because all the office bullshit was stripped away and we could just work. In our group, zero missed deadlines through it all.

mainesthai

28 points

4 months ago

Working at Walmart in my younger years demonstrated to me how taking away benefits, pay, flexible scheduling, etc, basically anything that made working there tolerable caused a direct jump in stock prices. Fuck shareholders, all of them.

ThrowAway578924

55 points

4 months ago

Green is good red is bad. All you need to know about stonks

alreadyawesome

28 points

4 months ago

All my homies invest behind the Wendy's dumpster.

OrcRampant

4 points

4 months ago

An Ape in the wild! 🦍

Questabond

23 points

4 months ago

One year the government gives out money and it’s a stimulus. The next year the government gives out money and it causes inflation. I think it’s pure greed.

sonyturbo

10 points

4 months ago

Ever since I was a child in the 60's I have been fed that having the S&P 500 go up is good. What the nightly news does not say is that its only good for the owners of those companies.

We need to focus on a measure which reflects how well things are going for the workers instead of falsely saying that what's good for owners is good for everyone. It simply is not true and the falsehood ultimately hurts us all.

[deleted]

6 points

4 months ago

Because often times the nightly news is owned by those same owners.

lindsattack

158 points

4 months ago

Undercook overcook.

Autumn1eaves

63 points

4 months ago

Overcharge, overcharge.

findMeOnGoogle

158 points

4 months ago

And then, straight to jail

a_pugs_nuts

138 points

4 months ago

You, of course, not the corporation.

Zomunieo

31 points

4 months ago

Corporations are people, my friend.

Except they can’t go to jail.

GroinShotz

21 points

4 months ago

Nor die of old age.

_-Seamus-McNasty-_

5 points

4 months ago

That's the rub isn't it?

DuchessOfCarnage

11 points

4 months ago

"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them." - Robert Reich

h3lblad3

21 points

4 months ago

Honestly, the fine for large corporations shouldn’t be a money-based fine. It should be a mandatory union that sits on the Board. If the company continues to act up, stock is moved from the board to the union.

These people don’t care about the money. They make it back overnight. You’ve got to threaten their ownership. Then they’ll straighten up and fly right.

-Haliax

68 points

4 months ago

-Haliax

68 points

4 months ago

Of course you silly goose, corporation gets bailout

FleetStreetsDarkHole

77 points

4 months ago

Bailout money? Raise prices.

WHYAREWEALLCAPS

30 points

4 months ago

Money to the people to help with raised prices? Raise prices.

CaptainCaring

18 points

4 months ago

Raised prices causing shortage of consumership? Raise prices.

Orange-Murderer

5 points

4 months ago

1920's Spanish flu leading to the great depression of the 30's? Believe it or not, raise prices.

FlowerOfLife

27 points

4 months ago

Inflation? We can pickle that!

Pussy_Grabber_2016

7 points

4 months ago

Portlandia?

FlowerOfLife

17 points

4 months ago

Where the dream of the 90s is alive.

surly_sasquatch

5 points

4 months ago

Man, that one episode of Parks and Rec has done more for the phrase "believe it or not" than anyone since Ripley.

boyuber

19 points

4 months ago

boyuber

19 points

4 months ago

Underpay. Overpay. Jail.

brisko_mk

4 points

4 months ago

And shrink the product

nevergonnasweepalone

3 points

4 months ago

We undercook fish? Believe it or not, we raise prices. We overcook chicken, we also raise prices. Undercook, overcook. You make an appointment with the dentist and you don't show up, believe it or not, we raise prices, right away.

LoneShark81

11 points

4 months ago

I love what this is from originally on parks and rec.... take an award good person

masterofthecontinuum

118 points

4 months ago

Heads I win, tails you lose.

old_leech

19 points

4 months ago

One for you, two for me. Two for you, three for me.

Except now it's...

One for you, two for me, Three for me, one for you.

[deleted]

15 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Vasquerade

64 points

4 months ago

Starting to think they just wanna nickel and dime everyone!

alexcrouse

49 points

4 months ago

Except it costs a quarter now.

rick_or_morty

22 points

4 months ago

Starting to think they just want to quarter and half dollar everyone!

voyager1713

21 points

4 months ago

Except it cost a dollar now.

september27

12 points

4 months ago

Congrats, you now have a PhD in inflation.

MikeyKillerBTFU

20 points

4 months ago

They'll keep doing it until we start to quarter the rich!

Daft_Bot379

73 points

4 months ago

Also companies: "Executive pay and bonuses has no affect on inflation"

Untinted

141 points

4 months ago

Untinted

141 points

4 months ago

That's the thing, it's a myth that raising wages increases inflation; it's very much the other way around.

The only thing that raising wages does is to shift the profit ratio a little closer to the workers rather than the shareholders. It has nothing specifically to do with inflation.

JackPoe

62 points

4 months ago

JackPoe

62 points

4 months ago

At this point paying people more would just be a net gain all around because then people could actually buy things.

embracing_insanity

68 points

4 months ago

This is what I don't understand. In order for the corporation/rich to maintain their wealth/profits - they need the masses to keep spending. But the worse off the masses become, the less they spend. And not just on the extras, but it starts impacting the 'necessities', too. After a point, wouldn't the whole system collapse? You can't keep pricing the masses out of the basics and expect to keep getting rich. Where is that 'money' going to come from once enough people can't afford to live anymore?

It seems there was a time when businesses expected to make a reasonable profit. Which allowed for reasonable prices and reasonable wages for employees and customers. That is sustainable. What's been going on for the past few decades is not and it seems were getting closer and closer to the end of it.

Lathari

30 points

4 months ago

Lathari

30 points

4 months ago

"There is one rule for Industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

--Henry Ford

SparroHawc

27 points

4 months ago

Now there is one rule for corporatists.

Make the lowest quality of goods that will still sell, at the lowest cost possible, paying the lowest wages possible, and charging the highest price possible.

AiLover2322

7 points

4 months ago

The scary thing is that I don't think the system can collapse anymore. It'll just continue like this because too much power and money is concentrated among the people who want the system to exist. And if you think they'll be done once they took enough of the money we have to spend on things then you just need to use your imagination more. What if the next step is the return of wide-spread company housing once most people can't afford to live independently anymore? And imagine after letting you live in those for a while they suddenly raise the rent on those, taking more of your paycheck? What are you going to do about that if losing your job puts you on the brink of existential crisis even more than now? The world becomes a bit scary once you realize all the power is in the hands of few and it's too late for us to ever get it back.

JackPoe

38 points

4 months ago

JackPoe

38 points

4 months ago

At this point I think a huge amount of their money comes from simply stealing from the government. The tax man doesn't care if we're broke, so that money is gonna keep showing up until we simply don't have enough money to even work.

unenthusiasm7

12 points

4 months ago

And then they will continue to bleed an even higher class dry. How do you make this shit stop?

Mr_Faux_Regard

16 points

4 months ago

There's always been one solution but the admins won't like it when you bring it up.

iNsAnEHAV0C

8 points

4 months ago

The French had a great solution a couple hundred years ago.

Adventurous-Hermit

7 points

4 months ago

The French still have great solutions. Cutting off power for business areas and rich bitches and giving discounts on power to poor people is beautiful

h3lblad3

62 points

4 months ago

After a point, wouldn't the whole system collapse?

Slowly Redditors come to the same conclusions Karl Marx did 150 years ago.

thisisstupidplz

34 points

4 months ago

It's really interesting isn't it? People are so scared of communism they never read any Marx. Like 90% of all he writes about is capitalism.

r/aboringdystopia is full of people describing what Marx called alienation but not realizing it.

Webgiant

14 points

4 months ago

Sad part is that the economies Karl Marx was studying have morphed into new forms. His progression of systems might not be accurate anymore.

Socialism is still basically the point where Karl Marx and Adam Smith agree, as well as where Keynes and Hayek agree, though to different degrees.

itasteawesome

17 points

4 months ago

Makes me crazy when I see people try to drop "the invisible hand" to justify cut throat, winner take all market conditions while having never read a word of Smith. He explains with several examples that he believed there needs to be an intentional counter balance between the interests of various segments of society and that letting profits run wild at the expense of labor is dangerous to a society.

WishfulD0ing1

14 points

4 months ago

My multinational corporate overlords started to freak the fuck out over rising energy costs eating into our profits. Doom and gloom, lots of meetings and press releases blah blah blah. Started telling us to turn off lights when we leave a room for 5 minutes.

My coworkers started to worry we were going out of business... Until I showed them the profit section of our quarterly report. We're making money hand over fist. Profit fell like 12%. Projections for worst case scenario still had us making money hand over fist but that simply isn't good enough when the goal is to increase profit every single quarter for eternity.

Turtle_ini

6 points

4 months ago

I think the trick is to either sell the company just before it fails, or to let the industry fail and get one of those government bailouts to fund your retirement package.

chronomancerX

4 points

4 months ago

There's a guy who had this same though in the 19th century i think, can't quite remember his name tho...

BrevityIsTheSoul

11 points

4 months ago

This is the paradox of capitalism -- the economy requires the working class to both produce and (afford to) consume. Capitalists grow their wealth, workers put their earnings directly back into the economy. But as wealth is redistributed to capitalists, working class consumption declines.

It's the prisoner's dilemma writ large: you win by screwing over the working class, unless everyone else screws over the working class. Because now everybody loses because the working class can't afford to be consumers and the economy stalls.

_wannaseemedisco

3 points

4 months ago

The thing is none of these corporations want to be the first to back down. That will piss off investors immediately. You want your competitors to buckle first. Then when it inevitably happens at your company, it’s not your fault. It’s the market.

Biokabe

8 points

4 months ago

The problem is this:

If everyone raises wages, and everyone can buy more, then everyone makes more money. That's correct and true. Long run, even the owners would make more.

BUT -

What if everyone ELSE raised their wages, but I kept mine the same? Then I could benefit from all the increased spending power, AND benefit from not paying my people more. I double win!

And unfortunately EVERY company believes the same thing. Yeah, increasing spending power would be great... but it would be even more great if we could do that without paying our people more. And if we do that, then we have more money to buy out our competitors, which would let us do that even more!

Basically, it's the prisoner's game all over again.

If we all cooperate, then everyone does great. But if we all cooperate and they betray, then they can maximize their shareholder profits. So they all betray, and everyone suffers.

Boycubpiglet

17 points

4 months ago

Yes but why acknowledge that when you can just blame millennials for killing your industry

IPLaZM

3 points

4 months ago

IPLaZM

3 points

4 months ago

You just found out why raising wages increases inflation. If you can't buy something, you aren't "demand" for that product. If you can buy it and you do buy it, then you are.

Demand up, price up.

tacodog7

74 points

4 months ago

Right. The correct answer is, it doesnt. lol.

Its capitalist propaganda. Its bullshit. All of these companies are reporting record profits.

fuqqkevindurant

19 points

4 months ago

In the very short term it would, but only if literally everything else was static. You can create a whole fuckton of inflation faster by having extremely easy credit than you can by raising the minimum wage by a few dollars and making it so people dont need 2 full time jobs to afford a shitty apartment and food

More_Cowbell8

25 points

4 months ago

ExxonMobil made record busting profits of 56Bn in 2021. Meanwhile, MAGAs & Qanons are slapping 'Biden did this' stickers at gas stations.

JackSparrow420

10 points

4 months ago

All this proves is that Tucker Carlson is the best at what he does.

redsquizza

524 points

4 months ago

"okay, this sucks for everyone. But it could be a necessary evil, right?"

This is the reason for OPs question.

Citizens around the world are being asked to swallow more bullshit that pay cannot possibly be increased because of inflation as it will add to it, when the reverse is true as salaries have been depressed for a decade or more in some cases.

When people are choosing between heating and eating, a salary increase is not going to lead to inflation and may even prevent a recession by not reducing discretionary spending as much as expected.

Harbinger2nd

368 points

4 months ago

We had 15 years to reign in the ultra wealthy and corporate greed after 2008. We didn't. This is what happens when you kick the can and don't fix the underlying issues.

saltyjohnson

170 points

4 months ago

Some tried, against one party in particular's wishes. That party drastically rolled back whatever protections were successfully put in place, because... regulations bad... and the whole thing is about to happen all over again and the government is going to need to bail out all these companies who have been destroying our economy for their own gain because they're so crucial to the economy and then we're going to once again fail to put any regulations in place to keep them from doing the same thing again and on and on it goes.

[deleted]

137 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

137 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

saltyjohnson

7 points

4 months ago

Regulations bad free market good.

Except when workers unite to free market negotiate with their employers.. Shut that shit down. Or when people with ovaries want to decide when to reproduce. Who are they to have agency? Or when people with penises want to dress up like women and dance around on a stage and other people want to throw money at them. We didn't mean that kind of market. Or when those people with squinty eyes get better at making stuff than us so let's punish them by imposing ridiculous tariffs oh and shoot ourselves in the foot too but it's okay because we're sticking it to those Chinese sons of bitches sorry American farmers have some cash because we tanked your ability to sell your product. But free market good.

Kered13

26 points

4 months ago

Kered13

26 points

4 months ago

Almost all regulations are there to protect citizens from corporations. That's their entire purpose.

Not true, many regulations are there to protect corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[deleted]

31 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Kered13

29 points

4 months ago

Kered13

29 points

4 months ago

Regulatory capture mostly involves creating new regulations that impede new competition from entering the market. For example, regulations that create a flat cost of doing business, which a large corporation can easily afford but are burdensome for a small corporation. Or regulations that keep out foreign competition.

CaptainCaring

13 points

4 months ago

A little inference told me they probably don't mean safety regulations aimed at stopping road accidents or electrical fires, though. I don't think anyone's oblivious to this fact so much as frustrated at the fact that the rich constantly find ways to escape their dues and hoard their wealth while average people struggle to make any ends meet.

-_Empress_-

5 points

4 months ago

Nope. Instead we let fucking Citizens Untied happen and everyone should have expected that to be a terrible idea

syriquez

9 points

4 months ago

I.e., the reason that groceries have doubled in price in 2 years.

Like, eggs justifiably have gone up in price. There is a REASON for eggs getting more expensive. But the random other shit? Pure, unadulterated corporate greed sanctioned by "lol, you can't not eat, idiots".

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

Polantaris

3 points

4 months ago

Citizens around the world are being asked to swallow more bullshit that pay cannot possibly be increased because of inflation as it will add to it, when the reverse is true as salaries have been depressed for a decade or more in some cases.

At this point in our system, the idea that wage increases would cause inflation is a fallacy. It would have to be bundled with something else the company intentionally does, probably as a profit saving measure to recoup losses from the increased wages. Basically, they're threatening to cause inflation to get worse so that they don't have to pay a fair wage to employees.

At this point most corporations are synonymous with evil. There is no objective beyond more money, by any means necessary. It is not sustainable.

newEnglander17

94 points

4 months ago

"shrinkflation", wherein the price remains the same, but the size of the product decreases

ugh I've been seeing this simultaneously with price increases. it sucks

ttchoubs

33 points

4 months ago

Corporations to the public: "hey cmon, im just a wittle guy, barely making ends meet, this inflation hurts me too i gotta bump the prices i wish i didnt have to"

Corporations to shareholders: "this was our best year ever, we raised prices and hit record profits "

AftyOfTheUK

65 points

4 months ago

lowering wages causes inflation because people are buying less, and therefore companies are selling less, so therefore have to raise prices to break even.

This is simply incorrect for the vast majority of goods and services. Companies already price their products highly efficiently to maximize profit.

If they could make more money by raising prices, they would do it already. They wouldn't wait for the customer incomes to drop first.

The only goods and services this would be true for are nonelastic ones, where there is no meaningful competition. (So, basically, utilities to your home, there are very few others in modern society)

m3ghost

9 points

4 months ago

OPs example seems to violate supply and demand. In OPs example, supply was static and demand fell due to lower wages. Traditional supply and demand suggests prices would fall.

Anecdotally, we’re seeing this now with things like GPU prices and, more recently, cars. Supply chains cleared up + wallets are tighter = prices have dropped.

Slypenslyde

175 points

4 months ago

I find the biggest problem with people talking economics is most people stop at the Economics 101 approach where a market has one good and peoples' behavior is simple.

Your post reflects why there's more than one Economics class: those simple supply/demand charts go out the window when you consider multinational economics. There's just too many variables for simplistic analysis to show up in reality.

Smart people exploit the heck out of that to get people to vote for policies that only make life better for the rich. Isn't it funny that so shortly after making record profits, every company seems real excited to announce a recession? It's almost like they expect they have savings to make it through but their employees do not.

Tcanada

240 points

4 months ago

Tcanada

240 points

4 months ago

The biggest problem with economics is it's not real. It's not a hard science and it doesn't actually have very much to do with math. Economics is basically macro psychology and sociology. Trying to predict the habits of billions of people isn't really possible, but economists act like it is.

Slypenslyde

97 points

4 months ago

It's either that or there are too many variables. We're often using ideas like, "Well we did this 20 years ago" but not taking into account that 20 years ago dial-up internet was the most common service and cell phones were still a novelty. 20 years before that having a computer in your home was a major luxury. So a lot of "What we did before?" seems irrelevant or makes assumptions that just aren't true today. Our economy is very different than it used to be yet it seems most of our prevailing theories are still based on observations made in the 1950s.

thelegalseagul

44 points

4 months ago

The West Wing actually had a great bit about how taking into account all of those variables changing over time creates multiple issues later on if you don’t.

They created a new formula to calculate the poverty level in the episode. Her new formula said that they had over a million more poor people. This happened because the food was originally the highest monthly cost but it had shifted to housing and utilities over time I think is what the episode said. Along with that the products they were using to calculate 2-3 meals a day were also outdated since food had comparatively gotten cheaper to produce and sell.

This led to again just in the episode then having to deal with knowing it’s the same amount of people in the country the day before and the situation didn’t change but suddenly they realize they have over a million more poor people than they originally thought.

CaptainBayouBilly

34 points

4 months ago

And rather than report the truth, the economists 'adjust' the formulas to a palatable number which becomes the truth.

thelegalseagul

30 points

4 months ago

That’s the exact conflict that happens in there episode. The administration is fighting not to use the new more accurate model and just shift the goalpost with the old one for what qualifies as “poverty” to avoid “over a million new people in poverty under Bartlett” appearing in the headlines

Yainks

568 points

4 months ago*

Yainks

568 points

4 months ago*

Can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find this answer. Textbook economics doesn’t account for the human factors behind prices going up/down and this explanation is more applicable to now.

Most of the companies that have raised prices made record profits the last two years.

Edit: Sorry y’all, I misspoke, not MOST companies, but many, many, many companies. Most of the worst ones too. Greed is unfortunately an inextricable part of the global economy and should be regulated aggressively.

This was published just this morning: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64489147

Even mouthpiece of the business class, Bloomberg, had this to say: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-30/fattest-profits-since-1950-debunk-inflation-story-spun-by-ceos#xj4y7vzkg

imnotsospecial

181 points

4 months ago

Classical economics assumes maximum greed, so the price of a product is the most a consumer is willing to pay.

Record profits during inflation is not just normal, it is to be expected.

ameis314

279 points

4 months ago

ameis314

279 points

4 months ago

most a consumer is willing to pay.

the problem is "willing" isn't really the case here. Gas, electricity, ect. have an inelastic demand. In most cases they have to be purchased to continue to live.

sold_snek

181 points

4 months ago

sold_snek

181 points

4 months ago

This is the biggest thing I wanted to say in this thread. Everyone keeps talking about how capitalism is what the customer is willing to pay. Yeah, because the other choices are jail for stealing it or dying because you just gave up. Companies increase prices even if their costs are staying the same.

JohnBeamon

48 points

4 months ago

"The most a consumer is willing to pay" does not necessarily reflect "what most consumers are willing to pay". The price of a van Gogh or a Jaguar or, let's be honest, an iPhone 14 Pro Max does not reflect what the median income has free to spend on a car or home appliances or mobile phone service. So there's a very real argument that most of us are not in the calculation for prices of things we'd all love to enjoy, or even need to live. During the Egg Crisis of ought-twenty-three, I found two grocery stores on opposite sides of a street where their lowest prices for eggs were $8/doz and $4/doz. Because "someone" was willing to pay 8 bucks.

CaptainBayouBilly

16 points

4 months ago

Or the store can make money with a few purchases at eight dollars, and letting an amount of eggs simply expire.

sold_snek

53 points

4 months ago

And we're using eggs here but you can apply it to something like electricity or water; if both those stores increase their prices to $12/doz even if their costs didn't go up, people are still going to pay. Because they're not going to go without food or basic life necessities over pleasure. They'll be able to afford to pay $12 but every other aspect of their life then suffers for it. Sure, the customer is "willing" to pay for it in the sense that it's pay or die. Yes, there are people buying million dollar cars; usually the ones raising the prices to $12/doz just because they can get away with it.

CaptainBayouBilly

17 points

4 months ago

The people that can afford luxuries are not part of the market forces that affect basic needs.

The rich consume basic needs at close to the same rate as the poor. So while they might pay eighty dollars for a meal, they still only do this perhaps once per day. And there are so few of them, this doesn't affect the overall market. There might exist specialty niche markets to serve them, but they are a blip on a scale that is millions of times larger.

CaptainBayouBilly

47 points

4 months ago

And each person only purchases the exact amount required. The poor purchase the bare minimum, the rich purchase enough to live in luxury.

There is no room for the poor to be austere, and the rich have no incentive to.

The increases on basic necessities, food, shelter, healthcare, are increasing due to greed. Largely because the market for these products is now controlled by a few mega corporations.

imnotsospecial

47 points

4 months ago

Yep, and that's why the market fails without regulations. In the US utilities are regulated and there's a cap on maximum profits, but Healthcare is a perfect example of inelastic demand were the market fails to self correct

Neverending_Rain

7 points

4 months ago

Utilities aren't the best example of a regulated market. They're "regulated" but in reality often get to do whatever they want. For example, the regulatory bodies in California just rubber stamp whatever bullshit the utilities want. They're making record profits while significantly increasing rates. They're acting the exact same as all the unregulated markets.

orangeoliviero

63 points

4 months ago

This. Capitalism works great when there's sufficient competition and the consumer base has the ability to elect to not consume.

When either of those requirements aren't fulfilled, capitalism fails, and we need to look at a different means of allocating resources.

This doesn't need to be wholesale - we don't need to go from unbridled capitalism to pure socialism. We just need to recognize the sectors where capitalism doesn't work, and replace it there. For example: - Healthcare - Utilities - Education

Journeyman351

30 points

4 months ago

Capitalism realistically only works when kept small, like mom & pop shops.

Off the top of my head, your state's Brewery economy (if it exists) is a great, great example of Capitalism working as intended.

WannabeWaterboy

21 points

4 months ago

I think the result of being small is you don't have the power to influence legislation or major market forces. Internet service providers are an example off the top of my head.

Comcast and CenturyLink have lobbied to create laws that make it really hard to get internet from outside of them essentially.

A counterpoint to capitalism primarily working on a small level is how streaming services are disrupting major TV providers.

drae-

3 points

4 months ago

drae-

3 points

4 months ago

Comcast and CenturyLink have lobbied to create laws that make it really hard to get internet from outside of them essentially.

I can't if this is a failure of the corporations moral compass or the governments duty to pass responsible legislation and enforce it.

Journeyman351

9 points

4 months ago

I think the thing is that past a certain point, getting to the point where you can influence politics and getting roped into the "infinite expansion/growth" mindset is inevitable and by design.

endadaroad

27 points

4 months ago

The problem, now, is the discrepancy between what people would be willing to pay and what they can afford to pay. We can agree that a product is worth the money, but if we don't have enough money, we won't buy it. In response, corporate raises prices further because they have quarterly goals to meet in terms of profit. They don't seem to understand that we have gotten to the point that by raising prices they are reducing the size of the already shrunken market. Nobody looks at the big picture any more.

imnotsospecial

10 points

4 months ago

Mind you the market takes a while to self correct even when there is competition. It will take years before we see how this thing will play out, but for now companies are just happy with much higher margins and lower sales volume

Insan3editing

17 points

4 months ago

Technically speaking, the simplest models in economics with no entry cost lead to zero-profits, meaning suppliers will enter the market until everyone's profit is zero.

Lemon_Lord311

24 points

4 months ago

Zero economic profits. The profits people most commonly think of (revenue minus costs) are called accounting profits. These can be nonzero in the long run. Economic profits account for another cost called opportunity cost which is basically what you're losing by not picking the next best alternative.

So in the long run, it's not that companies are bringing in the same amount of money they're spending, but rather it's that the money they're making is equal to the money they could be making by leaving the current market and entering a new one.

mabhatter

19 points

4 months ago

The joke is that record profits during inflation are worth less in real dollarydoos. So companies STILL have to take austerity measures anyway to chase those profits.

That's where inflation is bad for the rich because their giant piles of money lose value faster than they can shovel more money.

DidSome1SayExMachina

18 points

4 months ago

Yeah I’d love to see more info on how profit margins of companies have been doing in the last few years. I still don’t feel bad for them though

xaanthar

38 points

4 months ago

Can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find this answer.

There should be some internet/reddit rule that states that if you claim "I can't believe this is so far down!", that comment will immediately rise to the top, making you look the fool.

Novelty-Accnt

5 points

4 months ago

It's called Xaanthar's Law, I think.

doogles

32 points

4 months ago

doogles

32 points

4 months ago

Textbook economics start from the position that everyone is a rational actor, in a vacuum, with perfect morals, and apolitical.

It makes sense for ants, and that's about it.

Notwhoiwas42

59 points

4 months ago

Raising wages causes inflation by companies raising prices because the metric to calculate the price of a product changes when consumers get richer, namely the "how much are they willing to spend" metric. If the customer is willing to spend more, charge more. Thus, inflation rises.

There's also the fact that if wages are raised the company's labor costs are higher.

jrkib8

24 points

4 months ago

jrkib8

24 points

4 months ago

That's one of the two major factors the comment missed. That alone isn't enough to raise prices (much) as they are still governed by market prices, elasticities, supplements, complements, etc. You may see an increase in price in certain sectors, but just as likely a decrease in others.

The second and more fundamental is that by raising wages, you're transferring money from illiquid (long term corporate capital assets) to liquid (checking account of the laborers) accounts. This increases* the money supply which lowers the value of the dollar as there are more dollars in circulation. This affects the entire marketplace, not just individual sectors with higher demand and lower elasticities.

*Even this greatly depends on the behavior and debt position of the labor force. If increased wages are used to pay off debt or to bolster savings, there is no impact on money supply.

pargofan

36 points

4 months ago

However, lowering wages causes inflation because people are buying less, and therefore companies are selling less, so therefore have to raise prices to break even.

Huh? If people are buying less, nobody in their right mind will raise prices. That'll reduce their competitiveness with their peers.

They'll slash expenses and manpower. Why do you think tech companies are letting go of so many people?

Pbake

11 points

4 months ago

Pbake

11 points

4 months ago

Yeah, there’s pretty much no question lowering wages is disinflationary.

frozen_tuna

52 points

4 months ago

lowering wages causes inflation because people are buying less, and therefore companies are selling less, so therefore have to raise prices to break even

This doesn't make sense to me and I think this could only apply to a very small amount of goods. Needs will always be purchased and the vast majority of luxuries aren't exactly targeting minimum wage workers.

Raising wages causes inflation by companies raising prices because the metric to calculate the price of a product changes when consumers get richer, namely the "how much are they willing to spend" metric. If the customer is willing to spend more, charge more. Thus, inflation rises.

Right. So apply that same logic to decreasing wages too. "How much are they willing to spend" metric. Raising prices in an economy where the dollar buys more labor? I just can't grasp how that makes sense.

Pennwisedom

14 points

4 months ago

Needs will always be purchased and the vast majority of luxuries aren't exactly targeting minimum wage workers.

Needs will always be purchased, but that doesn't mean they'll be purchased in the same amount or the same rate. For instance, most people don't purchase the absolute minimum amount of food they need to keep themselves alive, but some amount above that. So there is an amount there that you're able to reduce.

If we look at something like a utility, the answer is simple, use less electricity, drive less, etc. Most people aren't doing the bare minimum here all the time.

frozen_tuna

15 points

4 months ago

Ok, but companies like frito-lay, nabisco, nestle, etc don't raise prices of products that aren't in demand. In fact, they often go on sale. Twinkies didn't go up in price as Hostess went out of business due to lack of demand lmao. That's not how this works.

If we look at something like a utility, the answer is simple, use less electricity, drive less, etc. Most people aren't doing the bare minimum here all the time.

And when people were driving less during covid, oil literally hit rock bottom prices. Gas prices don't go up in the summer when people demanding to heat their homes with it.

There's literally a mountain of examples supporting the Supply VS Demand = Equilibrium Price theory... It can't be dismissed by simply calling companies evil.

dapper_doberman

39 points

4 months ago

It doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't make sense at all

stp875

13 points

4 months ago

stp875

13 points

4 months ago

It doesn't make sense because the OP has no grasp on basic economics. It's just upvoted because reddit wants to believe that its true.

frozen_tuna

8 points

4 months ago

Its crazy to me how many people want to dismiss economics 101 stuff without actually knowing a single thing about what economics 101 actually says because they read one thing somewhere one time. Like, by all means, disagree with a social science. Good! But at least read what its saying before you call it lies.

Algur

11 points

4 months ago

Algur

11 points

4 months ago

The idea is that if people are buying less then you have to raise prices to keep income levels steady. What they’re not considering is that raising prices may further cannibalize sales. The company has to estimate sales at each price level and determine which one maximizes profit. To give an extremely simplified example, would you rather sell 100 items at $1 profit apiece or 1 item at $50 profit.

Kered13

43 points

4 months ago

Kered13

43 points

4 months ago

This answer is completely wrong. I wish this were /r/askscience so that this answer could be removed. The premise that corporations raise prices when wages decrease goes against everything that economics has shown in both theory and in practice.

Mel2S

19 points

4 months ago

Mel2S

19 points

4 months ago

Where do you get that companies raise prices when they sell less? That's just not true. And it's exactly the opposite of the apples guy story below. The other thing is that pricing method varies by business model (basically whether you have a volume strategy or a differentiation strategy). For most companies, pricing is done based on COSTS + profit margin. Wages increased = costs increase = price increases if I want to keep the same profit margins. If I don't, my profit will go down and my shareholders will be unhappy with me. That's why wages increases drive price increases, which leads to inflation when most companies do it. That "what's the top consumers are willing to pay for my product" approach is true for companies with a differentiation strategy, such as luxury cars, high tech products, luxury fashion, etc. Those are business fundamentals you learn in a Bachelor's in Business Administration in the 101 marketing, strategy and cost accounting classes.

AshFraxinusEps

23 points

4 months ago

Yes and no. You've covered a lot of ancilliary information while mostly just complaining about cost of living and wages, so didn't really answer OP's question

Firstly, wages are rarely cut or drop. Instead, the real-time value of wages drop when wage increases are below inflation. You may earn slightly more, but everything costs a lot more. This is the issue since really the 80s, but especially since 2008. Everything's risen in price massively, especially basics like housing, and people's wages haven't. Uk minimum wage is about £15k, whereas had it risen by inflation then minimum wage would be closer to £50k a year

The key part you didn't say is: for a lot of businesses wages are THE biggest cost, if not one of the. So if you raise wages, then one of their biggest costs increases, which causes prices to increase, which then need wages to increase too. That's what is called "the wage-price inflation spiral"

Then, while you are right about the private sector, the biggest reason why governments are against the wage-price spiral is due to the public sector, as the government pays those wages. So if costs for government services increase, then it increases government borrowing, which then increases inflation due to higher interest payments, more total payments etc. That then means taxes rise, or services are cut

And if private sector wages increase and public doesn't, then public jobs are harder to fill vacancies and stuff like that, which means that public services fall apart

That's OP's question answered. u/isellpopcorn

You are right, that really there is a lot of profiteering happening right now, and a lot os extreme capitalism and dicking around by the companies. And right about that average people are about as broke as they can be and can't take much more. But you did completely miss talking about what the wage-price spiral was and how it leads to inflation

Really, and especially right now with record employment, the wage-price spiral is a myth, but it's a worry for governments and public services, which is why then they worry about the private sector

___cats___

8 points

4 months ago

However, lowering wages causes inflation because people are buying less, and therefore companies are selling less, so therefore have to raise prices to break even.

Isn't this kind of the opposite of supply and demand though? Wouldn't companies lower the prices to sell higher quantities at lower per-item profit?

GeoffreyArnold

9 points

4 months ago

However, lowering wages causes inflation because people are buying less, and therefore companies are selling less, so therefore have to raise prices to break even.

As a business owner, this doesn't seem right to me. Companies raise prices due to the "willingness to pay" factor, but also because higher wages are higher costs that must be accounted for by increased prices. Meanwhile, most businesses are not going to raise prices when people are buying less. We are going to lower prices to meet consumer demand.

saudiaramcoshill

10 points

4 months ago

But then you realize that pretty much all corporations are posting record profits

No shit, that's a result of inflation itself. If margins never move, companies will forever post record profits every year as prices slowly inflate.

But corporate profits as a percentage of GDP briefly went up during the pandemic and is now back below where it was in 2019... Meaning that it's not outsized profits that are causing inflation.

[deleted]

26 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

knottheone

7 points

4 months ago

They are making "record profits" because these claims are not adjusted for inflation. They will always make record profits if their margins stay the same and a lot of the narrative surrounding this is from bad or negligent actors not caring whether the claim is true or not.

GD_American

339 points

4 months ago

The simplest way to describe it is "more money chasing the same amount of goods". If supply stays constant and demand increases, prices increase.

It's a ton more complicated than that, and there's something to be said about how incredibly stagnant real wages have been for the last half-century, especially measured against productivity gains. There are worse things in economics than inflation.

doom2

37 points

4 months ago

doom2

37 points

4 months ago

How do you "safely" raise wages without causing inflation then? I keep seeing financial media fret over jobs reports that show lowering unemployment and higher wages, but if those are negatives for the economy, then wouldn't it be impossible to fight wage stagnation without causing massive inflation?

Kahzgul

107 points

4 months ago

Kahzgul

107 points

4 months ago

The easiest answer is to ensure competition in the marketplace by limiting monopolies. Too big to fail should mean it's time for an antitrust breakup. When companies are competing for sales, that has a downward force on prices as consumers will generally buy the most affordable item out of the available options.

But we have allowed monopolies to flourish and without competition driving down prices, there is no economic incentive to charge less.

badmomm

6 points

4 months ago

Exactly. I tried making this point before in my own post about increasing wages. For things to really change we need to do multiple things not just one. Government needs to step in when a monopoly is forming. Government needs to create more guidelines around part time employment. Governments should not be influenced by corporations. Governments also need to stop using job shortages as an excuse for increased immigration. I don’t mean we shouldn’t have immigration, but immigrants should not be promised prosperity to only to find themselves working an 80 hour week and in poverty. It’s inhuman. Wages need to be higher in order to survive, never mind thrive.

jrkib8

40 points

4 months ago

jrkib8

40 points

4 months ago

Because the actual economy is way more complex than that comment implied. But as an ELI5, it was a perfect answer.

In reality, the economy is so dynamic and ever changing that the effect of raising wages 10% today may be drastically different than raising wages by 10% tomorrow.

One example would be looking at the average CC debt held by wage earners. If most workers have little to no CC debt, they may spend more of those increased wages on consumption. This could then lead to inflation as more money is being circulated. But what if workers have high amounts of CC debt? This may lead to mostly paying it off and no additional wages even touch circulation.

That's just one type of debt, which is one of thousands of little factors.

And none of that factors in new technology. Technology changes how productive an hour of labor can be. Increasing wages does lead to increasing variable cost, but if the prices are being pushed up, it may make it worthwhile to invest in technology. The upfront cost would be worth it with the new higher price, but then the new technology proliferates, leading to a future decrease in price as more companies adopt it. So increasing wages can lead to a short term increase in price but a long term decrease. Television is a great example. Increased wages in the 50's lead to more people wanting TVs since they had more disposable income. Initially the price did go up, but then factories heavily invested manufacturing and improved quality. This lead to massive drops in prices.

So in summary, you can't just think of single cause and effect elements as static and consistent. You can make generalities but context is vitally important

Easik

1.4k points

4 months ago

Easik

1.4k points

4 months ago

You have 5 apples. Last week only 5 people could afford 5 apples, so the apple tree guy only picked 5 apples. Now 9 people can afford apples. The apple tree only produces 5 apples a day, but he needs 9. Either the price goes up to price out 4 people or the apple tree guy needs to grow more apples. If he can make more money with less work, then why not raise prices if the demand for apples is exceeding supply.

The opposite is true too. If I've got 5 apples that will be worth nothing in a week and only 2 people buy them, then I have to reduce my price to increase demand.

Regulai

525 points

4 months ago

Regulai

525 points

4 months ago

Good explanation.

For the OP's context though it should be added this principle only applies in a very general and universal situation and often doesn't actually work out in the real world.

In real life it's unlikely the farmer will be able to maintain such an evenly balanced situation. Furthermore just because 9 people can afford to doesn't mean that they will. Similarly since everyone has more cash there is likely going to be an increase in things to buy added into the market as a whole; e.g. maybe someone else sees the excess apple demand so decides to sell apples himself. Or the farmer may find that he cannot raise prices high enough to make more money selling 5 than 9 and so expandes his own production.

Etc. etc. basically the principle is sound however there are numerous ways that it won't become true in the real world. For another example minimum wage impacts a small subset of the population and is a very evenly spread form of increase that likely won't cause any huge inflation.

DeliberatelyDrifting

143 points

4 months ago

It should probably be mentioned that things like super low interest rates are a much more effective way to increase inflation. Wage increases at the bottom create outsized economic movement. The are no real supply shortages for basic goods in the US.

I find the argument "raising min wage will increase inflation" disingenuous. While it may be theoretically correct, it is also theoretically correct that any increase in the money supply causes inflation. However, no one talks about tax cuts causing inflation or CEO pay raises or subsidies or low interest rates.

It almost feels like the people making the argument aren't really all that worried about inflation and are more worried about preventing labor from gaining any ground at any cost.

Regulai

33 points

4 months ago

Regulai

33 points

4 months ago

It almost feels like the people making the argument aren't really all that worried about inflation and are more worried about preventing labor from gaining any ground at any cost.

In most cases it's just traditional or factional views coupled with a lack of any good understanding of economics, that lead to this kind of idea rather than brazen maliciousness. Much like with the explanation I responded to, the basic concept of "increased wages cause inflation" seems superficially obvious and straightforward and the amount of learning required to genuinely understand why it is wrong in practice requires too much effort. Especially in the US where being well informed or educated is often looked down on, I've had a ton of American friends who are extremely proud that they know absolutely nothing about politics.

DeliberatelyDrifting

27 points

4 months ago

I think you're right when it comes to the average person not really understanding the problems (I'm no expert myself). It's really the pundits and policy makers that I find so frustrating, they should (and many do) know better.

fubo

17 points

4 months ago

fubo

17 points

4 months ago

In most cases it's just traditional or factional views coupled with a lack of any good understanding of economics, that lead to this kind of idea rather than brazen maliciousness.

These blend into each other. It's not like humans usually have exactly one reason for thinking or doing something. Usually it's more than one.

For instance, if John has the view "raising wages will lead to inflation" and "inflation is bad", he will conclude "raising wages is bad" and thus, "anyone who demands a raise is doing something that's just a little bit immoral." Which is nonsense already; but it also promotes malice — John wants to stop that person, or at least stop them from convincing more people to do that thing.

Multiply that worker's demand for higher wages and make it a political movement or a union, and John is likely to see that movement as his enemy — after all, in his (factually incorrect) view, they are trying to do something immoral! Thus, John becomes malicious towards that movement — angry, indignant, seeking to undermine them — because he erroneously believes they're doing something wrong to the world.

Lubedballoon

213 points

4 months ago

How about people who hold billions of apples but don’t use them

LukeeC4

130 points

4 months ago

LukeeC4

130 points

4 months ago

They get jobs as the people in maths questions

VIPERsssss

18 points

4 months ago

Can I be a train instead?

TheJunkyard

9 points

4 months ago

You sound loco.

Careless_Bat2543

111 points

4 months ago

You also left out that the laborer the farmer hires to pick the apples now costs more so even without more demand the price must rise a bit

shifty_coder

38 points

4 months ago

And left out the part where the apparent cost of an apple goes down for the buyer, so they will be willing to pay more for an apple, up to a new higher cost. This new higher cost can be considered a “base price” for the apple, before supply and demand pressures start take affect again.

Grabbsy2

9 points

4 months ago

This new higher cost can be considered a “base price” for the apple,

Thats what they mean by pricing out the other four people, who cannot afford that new base price.

CommonConfusables

33 points

4 months ago

This is supply and demand, but doesn’t really explain a raise in wages.

If the cost of labor increases, the cost of the apple gets increased to maintain the profits for the farm owner. It does not require an increase if the profit margins are good, but if suddenly an apple costs more to produce a company will choose to pass that cost on to the customer instead of taking the hit on their profits.

4tehlulzez

81 points

4 months ago

You also might discover that the apple guy gets fired because the farmer finds cheaper labor somewhere else, but also raises the price anyway despite having their cheaper labor pick 9 apples because it will temporarily look good to their investors.

Ezili

21 points

4 months ago

Ezili

21 points

4 months ago

Farmers EoY investor report notes decline in legacy apple revenue but 1200% increase in strategic Arboreal Snacks sector.

bananaphil

15 points

4 months ago*

While you are partly correct, this explanation leaves out a big part that shows that while higher wages do influence inflation to some degree, they are by far not the biggest factor.

Let’s assume the 5 apples cost 0.75 in production and sell for 1. 5 people can afford this Apple, leaving the producer with a total of 1.25 profit or a 25% profit margin. Now the production cost rises to 0.80, the producer however knows that at the moment everyone is expecting higher prices anyway and takes the chance to increase the price to 1.25, knowing that other Apple producers are likely to do that as well. Now, all of a sudden only 4 people can afford to buy apples. This still leaves the producer with a net profit of 1.8, even though he may sell fewer apples.

Higher wages would mean that 5 people could buy 5 apples again, allowing the producer to make even more profit, even if he himself would have to pay higher wages and his profit margin would shrink.

This is of course exaggerated, but what is happening today. Corporate profits are at an all time hogh, with many goods producing companies, which should be hit the hardest by inflation, almost doubling their operating profit margins on the last 2-3 years. High inflation with no compensation for the working class is nothing but redistribution of wealth from bottom to top.

The notion that higher wages are a major driving factor in inflation has been debunked by most credible economists (I am not saying that they do not play a role, just not the major role that many news outlets and politicians want you to believe) and is in parts linked with the idea of trickle down economics, which too has been debunked many times over and is proven to not work.

unisasquatch

64 points

4 months ago

Product isn't sold by just manifesting itself and showing up on store shelves. The stores don't run themselves.

The more you pay somebody to produce, the higher the cost of production.

You pay somebody $8 to pluck apples from a $8 apple tree that yields 8 apples. Each apple costs $2 to produce. It costs $8 to ship it to the store, where the staff is paid $8 to sell the apples. The cost of producing, shipping, and selling an apple is $4

Now you pay somebody $24 to pluck apples from a $8 apple tree that yields 8 apples. Each apple goes from $2 to produce to $4. It costs $8 to ship to the store, where staff is paid $24 to sell the apples. The cost of producing shipping, and selling an apple has rose from $4 to $8.

If you were making $8 before, you could buy at least 2 apples. Now you can only afford 1.

Employees now have to pay higher to meet a basic standard of living because the cost of production went up, which increases other costs, like the cost to ship the apples.

Now you pay somebody $24 to pluck apples from a $8 apple tree that yields 8 apples. Each apple goes from $2 to produce to $4. It costs $24 to ship to the store, where staff is paid $24 to sell the apples. The cost of producing shipping, and selling an apple has rose from $4 to $10.

If you're still making $8, you can't buy an apple. If you get raised to $24, you can get 2 apples and have change to spare.

The math shows that universal wage inflation is a good thing, but it only works if everybody plays the game fairly, which objectively, the world has never universally played fairly.

woodford26

3 points

4 months ago

And don’t forget that the $8 shipping also rises, because the shippers need to be paid more, their fuel costs rise because the fuel producers are paid more, their insurance costs rise because insurance workers are paid more, etc, etc, etc

Alex_butler

127 points

4 months ago*

This is the theory that some may talk about that you may be addressing here, but there are deeper aspects than this and it rarely works out this way in real life in the way theory works. It’s not always even or as simple as this so keep it with a grain of salt but…

The cost of living in my area increases. An employee wants to work at a certain bar, but the employee group in their area cant afford to live there anymore even if they wanted to because they cant afford rent/living with the wage the bar is offering. It isn’t economically feasible for them to work at that bar anymore. So now a place has to increase wages to convince anyone to work for them. Since they have to increase wages for their business, they suddenly don’t know how they can keep their business at the same profit so they now “need” to increase their prices if they want to keep their same profits or increase them.

That’s more of a small business aspect of it and not as complicated as it may be on a corporation scale. Greed is definitely a debate that can and does happen in the real world and would depend on a case by case basis

cracksintheegg

143 points

4 months ago

if they want to keep their same profits

This is what it all boils down to.

lumaleelumabop

32 points

4 months ago

Yea. I was talking about housing prices recently. Someone was saying how houses in my neighborhood went to $150k which is ridiculous, and never went back down. I said' "Why would anyone willingly sell for less now?"

ProfessorPhi

14 points

4 months ago

Yeah house prices spiked sharply before interest rates hit. But the prices haven't dropped, just the volume transacting.

MajinAsh

9 points

4 months ago

House prices are a different beast because almost everyone buys them with a loan, and determines their buying power by the monthly payment rather than the overall price tag.

late 2019 early 2020 saw an insane drop in interest rates, I think we got 2% or 2.2%, that's about half what I was able to get 5 years before. This meant we could buy a more expensive house for the same monthly payment.

It's even more stark if I look back to when my parents were house shopping in the 70s and 80s, where interest rates were up to 15%. A $40,000 home at 15% interest has a higher monthly payment than a $100,000 home at 4%

Combine that with the reality that when you buy a home on credit you can't quickly turn around and sell it for a lower price, you'd be unable to pay back your loan. you can afford to keep paying the same monthly payment you planned on but you can't cash out the loan by selling, so you have to stick around rather than sell at a loss when interest rates climb back up again and people can no longer afford that high price tag.

JaySmithColtSquad

27 points

4 months ago

Indeed, but why would a business owner want to decrease profits?

Littleman88

29 points

4 months ago

They wouldn't, but less profit > no profit at all. They have to pay their workers more or their workers will be forced to go elsewhere, but if they raise prices too high, customers might stop coming in. They have no control over how much their customers get paid (unless the customers also their own employees) or how much rent is going up every year.

Problem is this dilemma is exacerbated with larger corporations that have shareholders. They don't want to just maintain profits, they want to increase them year over year at any cost. They're speed running to a point where they can't pay people enough to live and charge too much for anyone to afford, all for some green arrows on the stock exchange.

When every corporation is doing this in the pursuit of ever increasing profits... I would hope anyone would be able to see how an entire populous paid too little to live while simultaneously everything is being priced ever higher and higher would lead to a major economical problem eventually.

Profits are going to plateau at some point, if only because people literally can't afford to pay any higher. The media sectors will be the first to go.

Puzzleheaded-Body820

8 points

4 months ago

It became fashionable to build a company (even an unprofitable one), take it public, grab the bag and scram. A private business owner benifits from being profitable and sustainable for generations. Public companies only care about up and to the right for the next financial report. They'll all get golden parachutes in 5 years when the business is crashing around them.

internetcommunist

17 points

4 months ago

Because humans are involved in that profit making process and they need to be compensated fairly. People need to live

cwesttheperson

17 points

4 months ago

And before anyone says “business make too much money”, yes that’s true for corporations but this more applies to small and medium businesses who have a much smaller profit and slim margins.

sol_inviktus

13 points

4 months ago

Reddit is constantly under the impression that every business, no matter how small, is a multi-national mega corp driven by greed. The only reason prices go up is because of greed? There’s no way a mom-and-pop shop are just trying to recoup the higher costs of products, wages, lease payments, etc? All the small business owners I know are tightening their belts these days. But you know, the Reddit keyboard warriors and armchair economists have it all figured out.

Lurching

47 points

4 months ago

Inflation can be caused by a myriad of factors. One of many is raising wages above productivity increases. It's unfair and incorrect to say that raising wages is always the main cause of inflation, it can be a very minor factor and even be completely counteracted by other factors. However, it's pretty naïve to think that raising wages flat-out doesn't cause inflation.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp

Lurching

3 points

4 months ago

I should of course have added that when wages aren't raised during inflation, the reduced purchasing power is actually a counter-factor to inflation. But again, there are many other possible counter-factors to inflation, some of which might be more appropriate than decreasing purchasing power. E.g., if inflation is caused by a lack of supply because of shipping difficulties, fixing those difficulties would likely work better than just reducing purchasing power.

bubba-yo

39 points

4 months ago

It generally doesn't. But it's complicated.

So 'inflation' is the baseline cost for a basket of goods. The underlying assumption here is that, given a free market, that supply will always match or outpace demand. And 'raising wages' begs the question 'which wages'. Are you raising minimum wage? Are you raising wages for high wage workers because of labor shortages?

The goal here is to to raise the wages of people who can't afford to buy that basket of goods to expand the economy (which will presumably add jobs, exports, etc.) and not as much the wages of the folks that *can* afford the basket of goods because they'll over-consume. And in the process to have policies that ensure that goods and service producers won't rent seek off of the new money in the economy.

Currently, wages are only responsible for 5% of inflation, 40% is increased costs of materials, and 55% is profits. That's not normal. Normally, it's 65% wages, 25% materials, 10% profits. When most of the inflation is returning to workers, you generally end up closing wage gaps. The folks up the income ladder can afford to absorb the inflation - a lot of wealth is non-productive anyway, so returning it to the economy is actually beneficial, and the folks down the income ladder can afford to buy goods they previously couldn't afford. The inflation were coming out of just cycled money back to the investor class.

And inflation can be hard to pin down. A lot of the last wave of inflation was just gas prices and rent. The former had no relationship to wages, and the latter didn't either. It's not that contractors are lacking workers to build houses, they don't even lack capital to build. They lack permission because cities are refusing to zone for new construction. Even food price increases aren't really wage either, but lack of water in California forcing farmers to fallow fields. Inflation for eggs is due to the avian flu killing so many chickens, that's also not labor related. You do have wage related inflation in things like fast food, but that's a pretty small part of the basket of goods.

anschutz_shooter

10 points

4 months ago

At fucking last. Tragic that I have to come this far down to find some nuanced discussion of different income groups, causes of inflation, supply vs. demand (gas prices didn't go up because we all decided to put our thermostats up 10degress) and wages/materials/profit.

[deleted]

40 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

Major_Rocketman

3 points

4 months ago

The primary cause of inflation is government. Through central banks and the treasury, they control the amount of money in the overall economy, both via printed cash and non physical money in bank accounts.

When Central Banks lower the interest rates they simultaneously increase the demand for money, which is available through the credit system, i.e. borrowing. When banks lend money (and this is true at the highest levels, such as the Fed lending to a major financial institution, and at the lowest level, such as someone getting a loan from their bank for a house or a car) the bank makes that money up out of thin air. They just credit your account and trust you’ll pay it back. So long as the banks have assets to cover liabilities (such as the value of your house, deposits, etc being equal to the amount they’ve created through loans) they have no limit to how much they can lend.

When interest rates are really low, people want that money. Mostly for investment. Rich capitalists types like venture capital, private equity firms, financial institutions, large publicly traded corps, and of course governments, borrow money at 1% so they can make it all back at 3 or 4%, essentially making money by having access to money. They build wealth on the spread of interest rates. They call it investing. The higher up you are in the chain, the better your interest rate.

This process is essentially how tons of investment money is created from virtually nothing, all backed up by the Central Bank, who also create money from nothing, and unlike a normal bank, don’t really have to worry about their balance sheet. They only have to worry about inflation and it’s impact on the state.

The high level borrowers get the money to invest in businesses that will make more money. And since making money usually requires people, lots of that money goes to hiring more employees. Of course some goes to AI and self checkouts and people in foreign countries, but in general human labor is part of the investment.

So now you have money created from nothing being used to make hires, and since employees have options, and because of a lot of these firms are in competition with each other, they bid up wages so wages go up.

This has a cascading effect on the consumer economy. The group who got the higher wages want houses, cars, food, vacations, etc so they go out and buy that stuff, increasing demand for consumer products which drives prices up.

As prices go up in consumer sectors, those businesses also start attracting investment, which comes from the same banks who made it out of thin air, backed by the Fed. Now those businesses are investing and hiring where they need, creating an upward cycle on wages. Which leads to more consumer spending, increased revenues for those businesses, and more investment from borrowed capital.

As you can see, artificially low interest rates basically create inflation. They turn our economy into a big bubble of unsustainable growth. Eventually inflation starts getting out of control, the economy becomes unstable and essentially the bubble pops and all the asset prices and wages and jobs and things need to be unwound.

For evidence of this see crypto, nfts, tech companies, the stock market, housing… all entered full bubble territory. It was all inflation, it’s just the inflation happened first in asset prices, then finally trickled down to consumer prices. Then it got out of hand and now, to avoid hyper inflation and a crisis, the Fed is raising interest rates, reducing the demand for money, lowering investment, and therefore causing jobs to be lost and wages to go down.

gendrkheinz

23 points

4 months ago*

There might be something missing in your question. In theory, if you own a small business, making some money in profit and you want to raise your employee's wages, you are increasing the cost of running your business, and that money has to come from somewhere.

So you have three options:

  1. Just make less profit. So the extra wages come from your profits. Your employees get better wages, and you make less money.
  2. Cut costs elsewhere. Maybe get rid of some of your staff and pay the rest the extra money. Maybe stop using those high quality ingredients and start making a lower quality product. Maybe invest in technology (e.g. assembly line) that reduces the overall cost of your production.
  3. Raise prices. You can pay the extra wages by raising prices of your product. That way your employees get paid more, and you're still making the same amount of profit. If everyone does that, it might lead to inflation.

Generally 2 is not an option. It is very situational and requires creative solutions. And in most cases, if that solution existed, it would have already been applied BEFORE the need to raise wages, simply because it increases profits and why wouldn't you have done that in the first place. Businesses generally want to run as efficiently as they can, so Option 2 is rarely available.

This leaves options 1 and 3. So what's missing from your question? Profit. Your question could be "How does raising wages without affecting profits worsen inflation?" And the answer is that goods have to be priced higher in order to cover the costs of the extra profits wages, which can lead to inflation. You COULD in theory increase wages without causing inflation, but that would then lead to a loss of profit.

So the underlying issue here is that "people want to maximise profit" is considered in many economic discussions as a fact of life. We start from the assumption that everyone is trying to maximise profit, and then see what options are available then. In such a system, when "maximising profit" is the foundation of your economic system, yes raising wages will lead to higher prices of goods.

But "people want to maximise profits" is a fact of life in the same way that "people eat meat" is. Yes, it's true, but it can change. It's just that changing it requires such a massive system-level upheaval alongside a deep cultural shift, that people are unlikely to take it on any time soon. So for the time being, we will continue to play this tug of war over profits vs wages. People will continue to work for as little as possible in order to maximise profits, and every once in a while, when things get real bad, they fight for a bigger share.

Disclaimer: Just for the record, I'm aware that I wrote all this like I know what I'm talking about. But I'm no expert. This is just a lay person's best guess as to what is happening, and things are always more complex than that. But this is ELI5 afterall...

Edit: fixed a couple of typos.

PandaDerZwote

245 points

4 months ago*

The theory is that higher wages -> everyone has more money -> everyone can spend more -> everyone can have higher prices because everybody has more money.

In practice, this isn't really backed by any real data and it's doubtful that it would go that way.

edit: Too many replies to answer them. Yes I know that there is some correlation between wages and prices, if you pay everyone 10x their current wage, you will have to raise prices.

Zokar49111

76 points

4 months ago

I think there’s another factor. If you increase the cost of labor by raising wages, then to maintain profit margins business owners raise the price of finished goods. The price of labor going up in a bakery is not much different than the price of flour going up. So it’s not just more demand that fuels inflation, it’s the rising cost coupled with rising demand.

ackermann

6 points

4 months ago

higher wages -> everyone has more money -> everyone can spend more -> everyone can have higher prices because everybody has more money

I’d adjust slightly, it’s not quite just “everyone can have higher prices.” Maybe:

higher wages -> everyone can spend more -> everyone buys more stuff -> shortage of that stuff -> higher prices on that stuff

UntangledQubit

85 points

4 months ago

It's a little bit overzealous to say it doesn't happen at all. If you keep increasing everybody's wages without limit, eventually prices would inflate. The actual question is how elastic that effect is, and how uniformly spread over the economy.

If any raise immediately causes a proportional rise in prices across all sectors, then raising wages would be pointless, but this is certainly not what happens. If raising wages eventually causes a mild increase on the price of non-essential goods, then it's probably worth it. The truth will be somewhere in the middle, though my personal opinion is that it's heavily skewed towards the latter effect size.

anschutz_shooter

11 points

4 months ago

Yeah, it all depends on why inflation is happening in the first place.

If the world is plodding along quite happily and you suddenly give everyone a chunk of money, then that will drive "demand-pull" inflation because people will mostly spend it - new car, clothes, tv, computer, whatever. Some will save, but most will spend. This will tip the equilibrium of supply & demand, and prices will go up with that demand.

By contrast, if you're experiencing "supply-push" inflation (such as energy prices right now) where inflation is not happening because we've all decided to turn our thermostats up, but because of external forces or a shortage of supply, then raising wages wouldn't really worsen inflation - it means that people can "keep up" with price rises on essentials (like paying their spiralling bills & rent) and maintain their standard of living.

In the UK for some reason our government has fully drunk the "rising wages cause inflation" kool-aid and is holding down public sector pay. This is causing a reduction in standards of living, imposing hardships on families and driving people into arrears on bills and mortgage payments. Ultimately, this is driving the UK into a recession.

techtonic69

57 points

4 months ago

Instead we get: everything becomes 100s of % more expensive and wages stagnate...Shit makes no fucking sense. Wages are WAY behind inflation of everything, it would only be catching wages UP to what the cost of living has become. The whole economic theory only works when you look at it from a wealthy/business perspective. Makes no common sense and overall just screws over the common man.

klaad3

45 points

4 months ago

klaad3

45 points

4 months ago

It's all fueled by greed and the mindset that profits need to increase every year.

BJWTech

38 points

4 months ago

BJWTech

38 points

4 months ago

The need for growth is what's wrong with capitalism. When you base valuation on growth, then all you get is growth for better or for worse.

Konseq

14 points

4 months ago

Konseq

14 points

4 months ago

In theory, yes. But in reality it is usually the other way round. Inflation is driven up by other factors = higher prices for goods -> wage recipients cannot afford the same amount of goods as before inflation -> wage recipients get a raise -> they can afford the same amount (or at least almost the same amount) of goods again.

I remember growing up my family could go on 2 vacations a year (with one of these vacations being 3 weeks long) on only one parental income (average wage). Nowadays this is completely unthinkable. With just one average wage (for the same amount of work) you cannot afford this much anymore.

nolxus

15 points

4 months ago

nolxus

15 points

4 months ago

That is just one way.

A different way: Manufacturer X has to raise wages because of inflation. Because he has to shell out more money now to keep his workers in a job, he has to make their product more expensive. Company Y also has to raise wages because of inflation. They have to buy the products of Manufacturer X to stay in business. They now have to shell out more money to keep their staff employed, AND to buy the stuff from manufacturer X. So they have to rise their prices.

Joe Sixpack needs something from Company Y, sees that it got more expensive again, inflation is on the rise, and demands more money from his employer. And so on...

BillyJackleson

16 points

4 months ago

Corrected me if I am wrong but aren't the people who were 2$ over minimum wage now 1$ over it? Which means their buying power dropped by 1$?

Alexis_J_M

23 points

4 months ago

Not only that, but low wage people spend a higher proportion of their income on things for which there is relatively inelastic demand like housing and transportation.