Markle
Diamond Member
I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.I find it interesting the complete disconnect here... The correlation of wages paid is not just "what's important for the business," it's between the paying rate for labor and labor availability. If there are 100 burger flipper's then that is a labor glut, it deflates the paying worth of that labor. If there are 10 managers, that is a labor shortage which inflates the paying worth of that labor. I am baffled that folks cannot see this, simple, common, everyday correlation.
If there are 1,000 widgets on the market the selling price would be less than if there were only 500. This is the exact same concept.
Here is the problem in this comparison:
You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.
And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.
When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.
Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?