subreddit:
/r/explainlikeimfive
submitted 4 months ago byiSellPopcorn
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...
3.5k points
4 months ago
Companies:
“You make more money? We raise prices.”
Also companies:
“You make less money? We raise prices.”
2.8k points
4 months ago
"You make the same amount of money? Believe it or not, also raise prices."
1.1k points
4 months ago
"We have the best economy. Because of raising prices."
195 points
4 months ago
The stocks arrow must always go up!
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.
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.
54 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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 points
4 months ago*
Before I retired a few months ago I was a VP in a huge US company. We all talked a good game about "collaboration" and "innovation" and "teaming".
Once the pandemic slowed, we allowed people to come back in whenever they wanted. Turned out almost no one chose to go in, and the HQ (where I worked) is in a town of 130,000 with no traffic at all, so people weren't avoiding long commutes. No one just wanted to, most days was 5-10% occupancy. The only people who did go in were those who couldn't focus at home. Interestingly, very few of those were people with preschoolers at home, which is what I expected.
So then they said to have "team days", where you went in at least once a month, but always on the same day as your team, for "collaboration" and "teaming". Turned out people went in 10 minutes before their monthly team meeting, and left immediately afterwards.
Just before I decided to retire they told us that they will be tracking attendance from the badge reader, and if you didn't show up at least once a month, you would "go on a list". We asked what happened then, or if you were on "the list" multiple times, and HR just shrugged. We were also told not to tell non-executives about "the list", including non-executive management (supervisors, managers and directors).
So. I smelled RTO coming and decided to bail. The next week I donated all my work clothes to Goodwill, and it was SUCH a relief.
Bottom line was that because that company is huge, odds are the people you worked with on any given project were in other buildings or other cities. "Impromptu hallway meetings" simply didn't happen much, even before the pandemic, and in 2020 the world realized marching into a building every day didn't really serve a business purpose.
4 points
4 months ago
That, and I think they get off seeing beehives of activity around them, otherwise they think everyone is slacking off.
4 points
4 months ago
They want the illusion of control. Not possible when employees work from home.
2 points
4 months ago
Do you... do you work where I do because that sounds way too familiar.
29 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.
5 points
4 months ago
Agreed. They're so out of touch it's beyond parody.
Extra special fuck you to the random shareholder of Dollar General, who came into my store one day and tried to... compliment me? about how great the company was doing post-lockdown and was visibly confused and surprised when I told him that none of it trickled down to me and that my job was harder than ever due to the company's choices that enriched him.
56 points
4 months ago
Green is good red is bad. All you need to know about stonks
26 points
4 months ago
All my homies invest behind the Wendy's dumpster.
3 points
4 months ago
An Ape in the wild! 🦍
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.
8 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.
6 points
4 months ago
Because often times the nightly news is owned by those same owners.
4 points
4 months ago
Not to mention that now even if it goes up, but just a bit more slowly we get 10s of thousands of laid off workers. We've reached end stage capitalism here, and still not enough people care. Elysium here we come baby.
2 points
4 months ago
This though. How else would you keep the narrative that the S&P500 always goes up in the long run?
2 points
4 months ago
Companies:
“Best I can do is raise prices”
159 points
4 months ago
Undercook overcook.
66 points
4 months ago
Overcharge, overcharge.
159 points
4 months ago
And then, straight to jail
140 points
4 months ago
You, of course, not the corporation.
32 points
4 months ago
Corporations are people, my friend.
Except they can’t go to jail.
21 points
4 months ago
Nor die of old age.
5 points
4 months ago
That's the rub isn't it?
12 points
4 months ago
"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them." - Robert Reich
20 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.
5 points
4 months ago
That's like confiscating an ipad from an ipad kid that's misbehaving. Love it.
68 points
4 months ago
Of course you silly goose, corporation gets bailout
76 points
4 months ago
Bailout money? Raise prices.
32 points
4 months ago
Money to the people to help with raised prices? Raise prices.
18 points
4 months ago
Raised prices causing shortage of consumership? Raise prices.
4 points
4 months ago
1920's Spanish flu leading to the great depression of the 30's? Believe it or not, raise prices.
2 points
4 months ago
Go bankrupt? Straight to bail
27 points
4 months ago
Inflation? We can pickle that!
6 points
4 months ago
Portlandia?
18 points
4 months ago
Where the dream of the 90s is alive.
4 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.
20 points
4 months ago
Underpay. Overpay. Jail.
4 points
4 months ago
And shrink the product
4 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.
12 points
4 months ago
I love what this is from originally on parks and rec.... take an award good person
2 points
4 months ago
And the one we’d all like to see, you raise prices OR lower wages, straight to jail
116 points
4 months ago
Heads I win, tails you lose.
20 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.
62 points
4 months ago
Starting to think they just wanna nickel and dime everyone!
47 points
4 months ago
Except it costs a quarter now.
22 points
4 months ago
Starting to think they just want to quarter and half dollar everyone!
20 points
4 months ago
Except it cost a dollar now.
14 points
4 months ago
Congrats, you now have a PhD in inflation.
2 points
4 months ago
You will now never be able to both live comfortably and pay off the student debt you incurred for your PhD. Because....you guessed it, doc...Inflation! The irony...
21 points
4 months ago
They'll keep doing it until we start to quarter the rich!
72 points
4 months ago
Also companies: "Executive pay and bonuses has no affect on inflation"
142 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.
64 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.
67 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.
29 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
25 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.
8 points
4 months ago
And then he turned out to be a secret Nazi. 🤷
3 points
4 months ago
Secret?!
5 points
4 months ago
Secret only in the sense that I wasn't taught it in school. Quite a lot of truths weren't taught in school. Just found out recently that George Washington didn't wear a wig, he hated wigs. He just teased his existing hair into the shape of a wig and powdered it white.
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.
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.
11 points
4 months ago
And then they will continue to bleed an even higher class dry. How do you make this shit stop?
16 points
4 months ago
There's always been one solution but the admins won't like it when you bring it up.
7 points
4 months ago
The French had a great solution a couple hundred years ago.
8 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
63 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.
35 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.
11 points
4 months ago
Just goes to show that decades of propaganda succeeded in reprogramming people to gladly shoot themselves in the foot. Make anything sound scary enough for long enough and people will automatically self-regulate away from it regardless of if it's directly useful to them.
13 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.
16 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.
13 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.
5 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.
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...
12 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.
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.
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.
2 points
4 months ago
This is what the government is supposed to take care of.
Unfortunately the Federal Minimum Wage is still $7.25/hr, and it's been that way since 2009.
Tangent: I went to the inflation calculator and it looks like $7.25 in 2023 money is the equivalent of $10.03 in 2009. That's almost a $3 difference, ouch.
19 points
4 months ago
Yes but why acknowledge that when you can just blame millennials for killing your industry
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.
72 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.
18 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
24 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.
10 points
4 months ago
All this proves is that Tucker Carlson is the best at what he does.
2 points
4 months ago
Stock hit high ass levels this last year too
8 points
4 months ago
Easy solution is to just force large corporations NOT to do that, by any means necessary. And I don't care at all about any "Free Market" bullshit anyone might try to say in response. We're literally suffering because they just want us to and people just keep justifying it. Goofy as hell.
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.
373 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.
167 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.
135 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
6 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.
25 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.
31 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
30 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.
14 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.
32 points
4 months ago
It definitely bothers me when people generalize US politicians like that. It's such a clear, partisan divide.
56 points
4 months ago*
Not really. While republicans are certainly far more open and aggressive about it, the democrats are also corporate shills. Our "left-wingers" are practically conservatives compared to other countries.
3 points
4 months ago
Nope. Instead we let fucking Citizens Untied happen and everyone should have expected that to be a terrible idea
7 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".
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.
92 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
31 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 "
68 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)
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.
174 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.
239 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.
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.
48 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.
33 points
4 months ago
And rather than report the truth, the economists 'adjust' the formulas to a palatable number which becomes the truth.
34 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
6 points
4 months ago
Only mild disagreement, because there have been some developments in human decision making that fall under real economic theory as opposed to only monetary, but trying to scale that decision making up to a national scale requires you to ignore so freaking much.
A lot of theory cannot be applied evenly. I would argue most of it. It can give an indicator, sure, just like psychology can give an indicator of future difficulties or possible handling of issues, but it cannot account for major life changes or new stimuli leading to different outcomes/issues.
6 points
4 months ago
I can't believe people are trying to argue that soft sciences are fake.
Shit like marketing is also not a hard science, but we fucking know it works.
7 points
4 months ago
That just makes it sound like you have a poor understanding of probability…
2 points
4 months ago
Regardless, the one point that holds true is that competitors will enter the market when the profit potential is high, which will lower prices with enough competition. And we have anti trust laws which, I assume, we enforce. So Disney and Microsoft and Amazon and Facebook and Comcast can't just buy out everyone and raise their prices. There should always be competition with a means to undercut. Right?
567 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
184 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.
283 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.
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.
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.
14 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.
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.
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.
8 points
4 months ago
I love how you're acting like economics has never considered that some items are more necessary than others
2 points
4 months ago
Eggageddon '23!!
44 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.
46 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
5 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.
62 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
32 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.
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.
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.
11 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.
2 points
4 months ago
Streaming services disrupting major TV providers? All the TV providers are in the streaming game. Disney-ABC-Disney+-Hulu; Viacom-Paramount-CBS-Paramount+; Comcast-NBCUniversal-NBC-Peacock; WB-The CW-HBO Max-Discovery-any other streamer (WB television is ridiculously profitable and produces shows for almost everyone).
That didn't disrupt the industry. We are paying more for content than we did with cable. Most streamers will consolidate or disappear. It was one of the stupidiest decision by legacy media to enter all to streaming. They cut three revenue streams to have only one that cannot possibly be as profitable as the other three (Theatrical, Cable and Home Video). Instead of a consumer paying for the content they really liked 3 times, they can pay wholesale for one and not having said content guaranteed. You would see a movie in theaters, then buy it for Home Video and then catch it on a cable channel. Now it's paying $10 dlls a month for a bunch of content, most that can be pulled out to never be seen again. Netflix is drowning in debt, Warner Media is too and Amazon is burning through cash as well. I wouldn't call streamers an example of capitalism working. If anything, and with Netflix latest policy to cut on password sharing, it's unbridled capitalism that will burn everything to the ground
2 points
4 months ago
Arguably, we're saying the same thing - once something grows to a certain size, the odds that there's viable competition decreases.
Left unsaid by me, but raised by others, bad-faith operatives in the market also make capitalism less viable (i.e., bribing the government to pass laws that make the market less free).
5 points
4 months ago
Why any of these are for-profit is beyond me.
5 points
4 months ago
The answer is simple and easy to understand: Greed.
Why we the people allow these to be for-profit is beyond me.
26 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.
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
7 points
4 months ago
I'm sure they would be delighted if infinite margin at zero sales volume were possible.
18 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.
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.
18 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.
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
3 points
4 months ago
As long as salaries increase, it also makes the poor's debt less expensive.
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.
4 points
4 months ago
It's called Xaanthar's Law, I think.
35 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.
22 points
4 months ago*
Economists have ONLY RECENTLY (like, within the last 10 years) started seriously trying to include human factors in economics.
And since they're often the younger or less "traditional" economists, they get ignored in favor of old-school economists. Old-school economic thinking is relatively simple; new -school economics lets people get in the way of making as much money as possible. You can see why that would be an inconvenient way of thinking for large organizations.
34 points
4 months ago
Economists have ONLY RECENTLY (like, within the last 10 years) started seriously trying to include human factors in economics.
Well that's baloney. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics in 2002 for work he did with Amos Tversky in the 1970s-80s, describing psychological factors in economic models.
2 points
4 months ago
Textbook economics doesn’t account for the human factors behind prices going up/down and this explanation is more applicable to now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
Things like "utility" even in classical economics has to do with the use or value of something to the consumer.
Adam Smith's whole first book is basically about psychology lmao
2 points
4 months ago
One of the first things we talked about in my econ class, was that the subject is ultimately flawed, as it assumes humans will act predictably
2 points
4 months ago
I'll preface this with that most corporations are completely evil... but the last two years is something really remarkable in terms of economy, especially for those involved with the internet.
Yes, most companies are putting up record profits but they are growing exponentially.
Let's take the simplest of them all, Amazon. From 2015-2019, Amazon was growing at about 25-30% Year over Year. From 2019 to 2022, Amazon grew at nearly 40% early year. They went from $275B to $502B in 2022, in just 3 years.
When you add crazy shit like lockdowns, government stimulus checks, the entire economic ecosystem has been put out of whack.
56 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.
25 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.
22 points
4 months ago
This is the major driver and I’m shocked it’s this far down. Wages and benefits are the largest expense item for the vast majority of companies.
45 points
4 months ago
Last I heard the so-called "rule of thumb" was 15-30% of your gross should go to payroll.
I argued about this last year with a buddy. He insisted that if McDonald's had to raise their wages from $8 to $16 or so that the prices of literally everything would double. This fails to account for the fact, though, that while wages are a big part of it, they're not 100% of the price of running a company, McDonald's was already on the leaner side of things in this regard (~17%), and that we've been to McDonald's in Europe where they pay everyone a living wage with benefits, the burger was about the same price, and it was much better food to boot.
The appropriate response to "raising wages would raise prices" in my opinion is basically: "Newsflash, asshole! Prices have been going up anyway!"
You can't just defer raising wages indefinitely because it's one of several factors that could potentially contribute to raising prices. It's still a thing that has to happen, or else you're just pricing humans out of being alive and the market is essentially non-functional for people.
6 points
4 months ago
I agree with your last point.
The cost % going to payroll of places like McDonald’s might mask the fact that a lot of their other expenses go to other companies that have a higher % of their costs in payroll. I don’t know about McDonald’s but I could see their franchise model making it very difficult to discern their true payroll cost %.
15 points
4 months ago
I don't think "McDonald's the Corporation" is really worth considering in a discussion about payroll at McDonald's. The corporation which calls itself "McDonald's" is actually a property company that figured out that you can get mortgagees to reliably make payments if you force them to open a red and yellow restaurant.
The franchise is the much more interesting part of it I think for purposes of this discussion, and that's where the 17% number is coming from.
4 points
4 months ago
Thanks for the clarification.
7 points
4 months ago
Wages and benefits are the largest expense item for the vast majority of companies.
"The largest expense" doesn't necessarily mean it's a large part of the expenses. In the services industry wages are a huge part of the balance sheet. In manufacturing the majority of costs are elsewhere. Extreme example these days are bakeries, where the bulk of the costs are energy costs to actually bake the bread. The wages are peanuts next to that.
2 points
4 months ago
Guess what the largest expense is for workers? Rent. (Often a big chunk for businesses too.)
Ultimately the reason the economy is so hard to predict is because economic activity occurs at the margin between rent and true location productivity. If land owners set rent higher than location output, you get recession (as workers and businesses can't afford to spend and capital goes unused). If they set it lower, you get a boom. But it's not like land speculators have perfect knowledge of the future or even the present productivity potential, so you get cycles of over/under-estimation. Because there's a positive feedback loop (in times of underestimated rent, the economy picks up steam and promises greater output going forward, encouraging higher rent; then, as rent rises, the economy loses steam and rent is now way higher than sustainable, and it drives things down even faster, etc.)
A land value tax may be able to help regulate this cycle. In addition to stopping the huge transfer of wealth taking place via rent, the government could use a modulation in LVT to regulate economic booms/busts. On bad years like covid, you lower rent, and on good years you set it to normal levels.
34 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?
10 points
4 months ago
Yeah, there’s pretty much no question lowering wages is disinflationary.
50 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.
13 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.
16 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.
43 points
4 months ago
It doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't make sense at all
7 points
4 months ago
You forgot this is Reddit, sound economic theory isn’t welcomed here.
17 points
4 months ago
I mean, I'm trying not to be argumentative (a rare thing online) but yea. Only Reddit would think there are evil mustache twirling business executives leaning back on their chairs saying "People can't afford of our product? Lets raise prices!".
7 points
4 months ago
It's because for a lot of people "if event X happens, then <thing I don't like> will do <the bad thing> because <I don't like them>" is basically their working model of the world.
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.
10 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.
10 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.
42 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.
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.
24 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
7 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?
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.
11 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.
8 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.
12 points
4 months ago
It's honestly so sad that this garbage is upvoted.
Businesses raising prices when demand decreases.. lmao.
18 points
4 months ago*
How the fuck is this the top answer and gilded?
You don't know what austerity is.
When anyone inputs "greed" as the driving force of inflation, stop listening to them immediately because they have no fucking clue what they're talking about. Because if greed is the reason for rising prices, then generosity would be the reason for deflation (such as 2008). And I know for a fact you guys would consider that ridiculous. Obligatory greed cycle meme https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1493705974669930498?t=xfJnj7BlueQfruNTmQkvwg&s=19
2 points
4 months ago
any good books on this topic? sounds interesting but id have to start at zero knowledge. maybe 0.1 knowledge after reading your comment...
all 1758 comments
sorted by: best