Random thoughts and plans for the coming inflation.

[Simpleton]

Simpleton, where does your personal income lie in the distribution?

Quite frankly this is a comically transparent attempt to discredit the arguments I am making without actually arguing the details.

I do well for myself, but I am not in the top 1% for Canada if that is what you are implying, which puts me way outside the top 1% for the USA. Not that it is your business.

Thats a completely fair response to my question. The way I phrased it does sound a bit like I'm trying to lead you into some sort of a trap. I really was just wanting to gain context for where your perspective is coming from, not trying to imply that you were out-of-touch or assume you were a high earner. As I alluded to earlier, I personally have always been a median+ earner, so I don't have any experience to lean on for perspective other than some limited time I have spent with people who have lived in poverty. My opinion used to be very closely aligned with just about everything you are saying in this thread. Over time, that has evolved as I am starting to realize that I was probably making assumptions based out of my experiences rather than the realities that others face in their own lives. I'm not trying to discredit your arguments. I am trying to get you to consider what argument you would make if you found yourself in a different set of circumstances. Do you truly believe you would hold the same opinion regardless of your income? I don't know how my opinions would change, but I'm certain they would be affected.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent there. Seems like I took some offense that was not intended.

[Simpleton]

*I might feel differently about this if America actually had robust employment protections and/or widespread unionization, and the jobs at these big businesses were paying living wages and providing strong benefits--in short, giving people great lives. As I'm sure you can tell, from all available information, I personally don't think that's what's happening.

I would argue they are paying some of the best living wages in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#:~:text=Gross%20median%20household%20income%20by%20country%20%20,%20%2015%2C026%20%2027%20more%20rows%20

The second table in that article is more recent and adjusts for PPP. Couple that with the fact that it only got better in 2018 and 2019.

The only countries doing better are homogenous white nations with very little immigration (until very recently). This is not a comment on race, but a comment on the fact that immigrants in general tend to perform poorly for a generation or two - probably language/customs barrier etc.

[mckaylabaloney]

I would argue they are paying some of the best living wages in the world.

What? Starting wages at Walmart are literally at the poverty line for a family of four. It’s good that America is doing well relative to other countries,* but what is it that makes you think the proliferation of big business is the reason? Again, I’m not an economist — maybe it really is the reason, or a reason. I genuinely don’t know. But the sources you’ve provided so far don’t prove those connections for you. How many people making above-median wages in America are employed by the big corporations you’re extolling?

*In terms of wages, anyway. There are plenty of other elements/costs that make up secure lives — and affect a country’s definition of a “living wage,” which is a relative concept — but aren’t reflected in wage charts, like healthcare and childcare and other things where America starts to look pretty bad pretty fast.

[Simpleton]

What? Starting wages at Walmart are literally at the poverty line for a family of four.

Quite frankly, I do not think the starting wage at Walmart SHOULD provide for a family of 4.

I don't think that your average 14 year old high school student working as a cashier SHOULD be earning enough to support a family of 4 - they simply don't provide that level of value to the employer. 

Taking a job like that is voluntary, and if you need more money I think you need to work up the ranks a bit, or find something paying a little more.

We do need safety nets for people - but the safety net should not be the Walmart starting wage. That is hugely inefficient and creates all sorts of unintended incentives.

When you impose this requirement, essentially Walmart and all other min wage jobs raise prices which are passed along to everyone - its a flat tax on consumers akin to raising the sales tax. Progressives SHOULD be much more in favor of supporting low income workers through a progressive tax system. I think this narrative has only stuck because its popular to 'stick it to big business'. Politically its an easier message to say you will make business pay - the dirty secret is that everything a business pays comes from its customers.

The biggest problem to me though is the disincentive it creates to do better as it compresses the wage spectrum.

It’s good that America is doing well relative to other countries,* but what is it that makes you think the proliferation of big business is the reason?  Again, I’m not an economist — maybe it really is the reason, or a reason. I genuinely don’t know. But the sources you’ve provided so far don’t prove those connections for you.

I don't have any proof of this - just correlation between the USA having a very high median wage, and also a very high number of big businesses. I found various articles talking about how MOST workers are at big firms, but no great stats.

How many people making above-median wages in America are employed by the big corporations you’re extolling?

I did find this article that states big firms pay more than small.
https://www.ivyexec.com/career-advice/2015/do-big-companies-pay-more-than-small/
Couple those stats with the idea that most americans work for big business and I think there is a compelling case.

*In terms of wages, anyway. There are plenty of other elements/costs that make up secure lives — and affect a country’s definition of a “living wage,” which is a relative concept — but aren’t reflected in wage charts, like healthcare and childcare and other things where America starts to look pretty bad pretty fast.

Well the article was looking at disposable income. I concede healthcare is likely not reflected in that chart which would make it look worse. I also would think that VAT and sales taxes are not reflected/accounted for as I understand it (only income taxes) - so that would be a mitigating factor.

I think trying to muddy the waters by going beyond looking at the disposable income and the explicit measurements of the graph/table would be tough to do in a fair way.

[RWD]

I don't think that your average 14 year old high school student working as a cashier SHOULD be earning enough to support a family of 4 - they simply don't provide that level of value to the employer.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a 14 year old as a cashier. A quick Google search says the minimum legal age for a cashier is 16 and most of the youngest ones I've seen appear to be early 20s. Another search says that the median age of a cashier is 32 and median pay is ~$20k.

[Simpleton]

I don't think that your average 14 year old high school student working as a cashier SHOULD be earning enough to support a family of 4 - they simply don't provide that level of value to the employer.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a 14 year old as a cashier. A quick Google search says the minimum legal age for a cashier is 16 and most of the youngest ones I've seen appear to be early 20s. Another search says that the median age of a cashier is 32 and median pay is ~$20k.

In Canada you can start working at 14 - I did, washing dishes, part time though obviously. Most people in my school had jobs before graduating high school. Working in retail myself, I can tell you I am sure that is the same today with high school kids - lots of them work.

My quick google search shows it is the same age limit in the USA at a federal level.

I had no expectation of being able to support my parents and siblings. We need jobs like the one I had to exist.

[Roland of Gilead]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

[ender]

I have to say though, I always assume that anyone who believes that money follows a meritocracy hasn't spent much time with the very wealthy. Most are really not all that impressive for the most part compared to typical doctor/lawyer/professor level performers.

The people paying them beg to differ with you.

In all seriousness though, making more money doesnt mean you are a better/smarter person. You are just willing to deliver a service that many other people are not.

This is how we ensure that everyone doesnt decide to be video game testers for careers.

I think the assumption you are making is that making a lot of money is a choice that people make.

That when they are say 16 and thinking about their career, or whatever age, people start deciding "you know, I think I'll become a CEO" or "I want to work at Walmart as a greeter" or other variants on this.

The underlying assumptions you are making are:

• Everyone has the same opportunity to make income (as well as massive income such as CEO pay)
• People who do not do this are choosing to not do so
• Everyone has equal opportunity and ability to improve their socioeconomic status
• Everyone has similar innate abilities and skills

In this mindset, you are correct that such disproportionate pay is ok, because everyone has the same opportunities.

However... I strongly disagree with these assumptions being true. I am wildly successful even by American standards. I do not know what my income/wealth percentiles are but I am on an easymode life compared to the average American. Why? Because I chose good intelligence and parents in the "character selection" stage of life. I have certainly put effort in myself but the reality is, I was just setup for success when I was born and throughout my childhood.

It is naive of me to think that the average inner city black male baby with a parent in jail and the other on drugs had remotely the same opportunities I do, even if born with the same intellect. It's just blatantly naive to pretend this is the case.

John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance is really great to illustrate this perspective. If you were analyzing society, not knowing where you'd be placed socioeconomically (including things like parents, childhood experiences, etc) would you see it as fair? If you knew there was a 25% chance of being dropped into the experience of someone in the bottom 25% of society income wise, would you be ok with the general equality of society?

And you can't go, "well duh I'd just move out of it" because that's not the point of this exercise. The point is to imagine yourself with their experiences and life. That includes the culture they grew up in, societies biases against them, etc.

Now it's possible you think that American society is fair from this perspective. In which case, we just disagree on this. But I find most people in the top 25% think about inequality quite differently when they imagine a 3/4 chance they are born not into a family in the top 25% but the bottom 75% or even bottom 25%.

[JLee]

@ender that is an excellent point, and one that's easy to miss for the privileged class who are isolated from what it's like to be poor.

I don't think that your average 14 year old high school student working as a cashier SHOULD be earning enough to support a family of 4 - they simply don't provide that level of value to the employer.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a 14 year old as a cashier. A quick Google search says the minimum legal age for a cashier is 16 and most of the youngest ones I've seen appear to be early 20s. Another search says that the median age of a cashier is 32 and median pay is ~$20k.

In Canada you can start working at 14 - I did, washing dishes, part time though obviously. Most people in my school had jobs before graduating high school. Working in retail myself, I can tell you I am sure that is the same today with high school kids - lots of them work.

My quick google search shows it is the same age limit in the USA at a federal level.

I had no expectation of being able to support my parents and siblings. We need jobs like the one I had to exist.

https://www.job-applications.com/how-old-to-work/walmart/

Since customers can purchase alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, Walmart sets the minimum hiring age for entry-level store jobs at sixteen.

[Simpleton]

It is naive of me to think that the average inner city black male baby with a parent in jail and the other on drugs had remotely the same opportunities I do, even if born with the same intellect. It's just blatantly naive to pretend this is the case.

I think in numerous posts I have conceded that equal opportunity is not where it needs to be. I think I have specifically used an example very similar to the one you referenced.

Where I disagree with you is how we correct for this.

Many people arguing against me think we should correct for inequality of opportunity by ensuring equality of outcome. I think this is harmful for society as a whole.

I propose that we should correct inequality of opportunity by improving on equality of opportunity.

[ender]

It is naive of me to think that the average inner city black male baby with a parent in jail and the other on drugs had remotely the same opportunities I do, even if born with the same intellect. It's just blatantly naive to pretend this is the case.

I think in numerous posts I have conceded that equal opportunity is not where it needs to be. I think I have specifically used an example very similar to the one you referenced.

Where I disagree with you is how we correct for this.

Many people arguing against me think we should correct for inequality of opportunity by ensuring equality of outcome. I think this is harmful for society as a whole.

I propose that we should correct inequality of opportunity by improving on equality of opportunity.

How do you propose we make it so everyone has an equal shot at becoming CEO?

[GuitarStv]

Simpleton, just trying to understand your position on this topic.

If the lowest 25% of wage earners were to see a 1% increase in real wages while the top 25% simultaneously experienced a 100% increase, your opinion is that this wouldn't be a problem?

What if the starting point for your bottom earners is significant impoverishment, and a slight increase in wages does nothing to alleviate that? Is your stance that the relative rate of change is unimportant, no matter how severe the discrepancy?

Lets start from where we are, not a hypothetical.

We are starting from a point where median earnings have essentially never been higher, in one of the most prosperous countries in the world (if not the most prosperous).

It got this way with the current system.

So if we go from that reality, to one where  everyone continues to become wealthier but at different rates, yes I would see that as a great thing.

I dont think equality is inherently a good thing. Equal opportunity sure, equality no.

Do you think the trajectories of those two income categories over the last decades is good to project out another 30 years?

If the median income continued to improve for the next 30 years, but some people improved even faster than that? Sign me up, I'm not an envious person.

Hmm.  Let's work this out logically.

We start out with a very egalitarian society.

The top 1% makes 50,000$ a year, the median income is 40,000$ a year.  Very little wealth gap.  Power is very similar between the rich and the poor.

Everyone keeps improving.  So the top 1% have salaries that go up by 100,000,000 per year.  Everyone else 'improves' by 1$ per year.

By year ten, the top 1% are making more than a trillion dollars a year.  The median income is 40,000$ per year.  Indexed for inflation, the median income is actually lower than a decade prior.  This is, in effect, a return to feudalism.  This sounds like a good idea to you?

Obviously if you introduce absurd variables the outcomes become absurd very quickly.

I don't agree with the assertion that these numbers are absurd.  The wealthiest 10% of the population in the US currently hold 70% of the total household assets - far more than than the bottom 90%.  This is a gap that has been increasing over time.

That's pretty absurd.  But it's happening.

[JLee]

I don't agree with the assertion that these numbers are absurd.  The wealthiest 10% of the population in the US currently hold 70% of the total household assets - far more than than the bottom 90%.  This is a gap that has been increasing over time.

That's pretty absurd.  But it's happening.

The top 1% is apparently up to 16x the wealth of the entire bottom 50% combined (or was last year, so the gap is likely even wider now):

The latest numbers show the top 1% has 16 times more wealth than the bottom 50% combined. That’s roughly $34.23 trillion compared to $2.08 trillion.

[GuitarStv]

I don't agree with the assertion that these numbers are absurd.  The wealthiest 10% of the population in the US currently hold 70% of the total household assets - far more than than the bottom 90%.  This is a gap that has been increasing over time.

That's pretty absurd.  But it's happening.

The top 1% is apparently up to 16x the wealth of the entire bottom 50% combined (or was last year, so the gap is likely even wider now):

The latest numbers show the top 1% has 16 times more wealth than the bottom 50% combined. That’s roughly $34.23 trillion compared to $2.08 trillion.

So are the numbers absurd?  Hell yes.  But that's a reflection of the absurd reality that we're living.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It is naive of me to think that the average inner city black male baby with a parent in jail and the other on drugs had remotely the same opportunities I do, even if born with the same intellect. It's just blatantly naive to pretend this is the case.

I think in numerous posts I have conceded that equal opportunity is not where it needs to be. I think I have specifically used an example very similar to the one you referenced.

Where I disagree with you is how we correct for this.

Many people arguing against me think we should correct for inequality of opportunity by ensuring equality of outcome. I think this is harmful for society as a whole.

I propose that we should correct inequality of opportunity by improving on equality of opportunity.

Yes. When people say equal opportunity they mean 'opportunity', i.e. the pathway exists. They don't mean 'equal chance'. There are many people born without the intellect or talent to achieve any greatness in a field of endeavour. That's okay. They get a safety net.

To give you an example, the NBA is an equal opportunity system. You don't have to be rich to play street ball. You don't have to be rich to get into a high school team and attract college recruiters. In that sense the NBA is a meritocracy. This is not inconsistent with the truth that 90% of people will never be good at basketball because they lack the genes and willpower. That's fine. That's meritocracy in action.

Ender posted above that meritocracy requires some sort of acknowledgement that people have similar innate skills and talents. Nah, that's not a requirement of meritocracy at all, although it's a common fiction making people feel better about the whole situation. For me, I think you simply reap what you sow.

[JLee]

It is naive of me to think that the average inner city black male baby with a parent in jail and the other on drugs had remotely the same opportunities I do, even if born with the same intellect. It's just blatantly naive to pretend this is the case.

I think in numerous posts I have conceded that equal opportunity is not where it needs to be. I think I have specifically used an example very similar to the one you referenced.

Where I disagree with you is how we correct for this.

Many people arguing against me think we should correct for inequality of opportunity by ensuring equality of outcome. I think this is harmful for society as a whole.

I propose that we should correct inequality of opportunity by improving on equality of opportunity.

Yes. When people say equal opportunity they mean 'opportunity', i.e. the pathway exists. They don't mean 'equal chance'. There are many people born without the intellect or talent to achieve any greatness in a field of endeavour. That's okay. They get a safety net.

To give you an example, the NBA is an equal opportunity system. You don't have to be rich to play street ball. You don't have to be rich to get into a high school team and attract college recruiters. In that sense the NBA is a meritocracy. This does not mean that 90% of people will never be good at basketball because they lack the genes and willpower. That's fine. That's meritocracy in action.

Ender posted above that meritocracy requires some sort of acknowledgement that people have similar innate skills and talents. Nah, that's not a requirement of meritocracy at all, although it's a common fiction making people feel better about the whole situation. For me, I think you simply reap what you sow.

A lot of people with money think that way because they're isolated from the experience of those who are lacking their privilege.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Funny thing is, I didn't have that much privilege growing up; my parents were poor migrants who didn't speak English, and in turn I was too. Of course my parents didn't stay poor - they are smart and hard working - but I am hardly insulated from the realities of life.

I know what it's like to come from a poor family.

The opportunities I had are widely available, at least here in Australia (and also in the US). The things I got, I got for free:
- I never had paid tuition
- the scholarship tests I went for were free
- the gifted and talented programs I got in were free
- the university grant I got was based on my marks in a public school
etc

As long as we keep pumping in money to ensure that students have the opportunity to try out for scholarships, and as long as we try to control for socio-economic status (best way to do this is to fund education at all levels, and give poor children higher scaled scores so it's easier for them to get scholarships), the 'privilege' argument is an illusion.

Unless you mean a different kind of privilege - a non-economic privilege. Like the privilege of being good at maths or English. Well, my idea of a society is one where that privilege is rewarded, same as the privilege of being a good basketball player.

[JLee]

Funny thing is, I didn't have that much privilege growing up; my parents were poor migrants who didn't speak English, and in turn I was too. Of course my parents didn't stay poor - they are smart and hard working - but I am hardly insulated from the realities of life.

I know what it's like to come from a poor family.

The opportunities I had are widely available, at least here in Australia (and also in the US). The things I got, I got for free:
- I never had paid tuition
- the scholarship tests I went for were free
- the gifted and talented programs I got in were free
- the university grant I got was based on my marks in a public school
etc

As long as we keep pumping in money to ensure that students have the opportunity to try out for scholarships, and as long as we try to control for socio-economic status (best way to do this is to fund education at all levels, and give poor children higher scaled scores so it's easier for them to get scholarships), the 'privilege' argument is an illusion.

Unless you mean a different kind of privilege - a non-economic privilege. Like the privilege of being good at maths or English. Well, my idea of a society is one where that privilege is rewarded, same as the privilege of being a good basketball player.

"I didn't have that much privilege, all I had were motivated, intelligent parents and free unlimited advanced education"

So I have some news for you...that's not how things generally work in the US.

[mckaylabaloney]

Quite frankly, I do not think the starting wage at Walmart SHOULD provide for a family of 4.

I don't think that your average 14 year old high school student working as a cashier SHOULD be earning enough to support a family of 4 - they simply don't provide that level of value to the employer.

The average Walmart employee, like the average fast food employee, is an adult, not a teenager (also FYI the minimum age to be hired at Walmart is 16 and some Walmart jobs have a minimum age of 18; it's true that 14-year-olds can work at some places in the US but Walmart is not one of them).

At any rate, the teenagers who do work at Walmart aren't going to make enough to support a family of 4 because they aren't working full time. That's fine! I haven't said otherwise. But I don't know why the existence of teenage employees means that the wage should be so low that an adult working full time can't sufficiently support a family. The average Walmart employee, as of last year, made ~$14.00 per hour ($28,000 per year): https://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/90/0b/22715fd34947927eed86a72c788e/walmart-esg-report-2020.pdf.
 

Taking a job like that is voluntary, and if you need more money I think you need to work up the ranks a bit, or find something paying a little more.

I don't understand how this is consistent with your position that it's good, or at least okay, when big businesses and their presumed higher levels of efficiency suck up jobs from smaller businesses. You've conceded that big businesses like Walmart can be job destroyers. What happens when Walmart has destroyed a lot of the non-Walmart jobs in a small town? Where should people look to find something "paying a little more"? How would you advise a person supporting children on wages that are below or barely above the poverty line to go about finding a different job? What if they don't have an education, and the only way to find a higher-paying job would be to get a degree--somehow, while raising children and working full-time on poverty-level wages?

We do need safety nets for people - but the safety net should not be the Walmart starting wage. That is hugely inefficient and creates all sorts of unintended incentives.

When you impose this requirement, essentially Walmart and all other min wage jobs raise prices which are passed along to everyone - its a flat tax on consumers akin to raising the sales tax. Progressives SHOULD be much more in favor of supporting low income workers through a progressive tax system. I think this narrative has only stuck because its popular to 'stick it to big business'. Politically its an easier message to say you will make business pay - the dirty secret is that everything a business pays comes from its customers.

The biggest problem to me though is the disincentive it creates to do better as it compresses the wage spectrum.

You seem to be assuming that Walmart's (and other big businesses') current wages don't already have huge costs that are passed to consumers. Consumers are, by and large, taxpayers -- who are already heavily subsidizing low wages at places like Walmart and McDonald's, which employ huge amounts of people who make so little, even working full-time, that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. (See, e.g., https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/13/study-when-companies-pay-low-wages-taxpayers-end-up-with-the-rest-of-the-bill/). Is your argument that this is fine because it doesn't directly increase the cost of goods, and taxpayers should continue to pay for the costs of Walmart's low wages (and that it's good for so many Walmart employees to require substantial government assistance), while its executives and shareholders enjoy substantial company profits? (Note also that some of those profits COULD go to raising wages; it's not a law of the universe that only consumers have to eat the cost of higher wages, in the form of higher prices. Executives don't have to make so much! The company doesn't have to pump up its stock price! These are choices we've made in the legal system we've created.)

[djadziadax]

This interview with Gundluch is interesting on inflation, QE, etc - if you have not seen it already

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gundlach-there-are-reasons-to-be-worried-about-inflation-100732010.html

[djadziadax]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

[GuitarStv]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

Can you prove this hypothesis about higher minimum wage accelerating automation (that's coming anyway)?

The minimum wage in Canada is twice that of the US.  Are our cashiers being automated away at a faster rate than American ones?

[Simpleton]

Quite frankly, I do not think the starting wage at Walmart SHOULD provide for a family of 4.

I don't think that your average 14 year old high school student working as a cashier SHOULD be earning enough to support a family of 4 - they simply don't provide that level of value to the employer.

The average Walmart employee, like the average fast food employee, is an adult, not a teenager (also FYI the minimum age to be hired at Walmart is 16 and some Walmart jobs have a minimum age of 18; it's true that 14-year-olds can work at some places in the US but Walmart is not one of them).

At any rate, the teenagers who do work at Walmart aren't going to make enough to support a family of 4 because they aren't working full time. That's fine! I haven't said otherwise. But I don't know why the existence of teenage employees means that the wage should be so low that an adult working full time can't sufficiently support a family. The average Walmart employee, as of last year, made ~$14.00 per hour ($28,000 per year): https://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/90/0b/22715fd34947927eed86a72c788e/walmart-esg-report-2020.pdf.
 

Taking a job like that is voluntary, and if you need more money I think you need to work up the ranks a bit, or find something paying a little more.

I don't understand how this is consistent with your position that it's good, or at least okay, when big businesses and their presumed higher levels of efficiency suck up jobs from smaller businesses. You've conceded that big businesses like Walmart can be job destroyers. What happens when Walmart has destroyed a lot of the non-Walmart jobs in a small town? Where should people look to find something "paying a little more"? How would you advise a person supporting children on wages that are below or barely above the poverty line to go about finding a different job? What if they don't have an education, and the only way to find a higher-paying job would be to get a degree--somehow, while raising children and working full-time on poverty-level wages?

We do need safety nets for people - but the safety net should not be the Walmart starting wage. That is hugely inefficient and creates all sorts of unintended incentives.

When you impose this requirement, essentially Walmart and all other min wage jobs raise prices which are passed along to everyone - its a flat tax on consumers akin to raising the sales tax. Progressives SHOULD be much more in favor of supporting low income workers through a progressive tax system. I think this narrative has only stuck because its popular to 'stick it to big business'. Politically its an easier message to say you will make business pay - the dirty secret is that everything a business pays comes from its customers.

The biggest problem to me though is the disincentive it creates to do better as it compresses the wage spectrum.

You seem to be assuming that Walmart's (and other big businesses') current wages don't already have huge costs that are passed to consumers. Consumers are, by and large, taxpayers -- who are already heavily subsidizing low wages at places like Walmart and McDonald's, which employ huge amounts of people who make so little, even working full-time, that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. (See, e.g., https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/13/study-when-companies-pay-low-wages-taxpayers-end-up-with-the-rest-of-the-bill/). Is your argument that this is fine because it doesn't directly increase the cost of goods, and taxpayers should continue to pay for the costs of Walmart's low wages (and that it's good for so many Walmart employees to require substantial government assistance), while its executives and shareholders enjoy substantial company profits? (Note also that some of those profits COULD go to raising wages; it's not a law of the universe that only consumers have to eat the cost of higher wages, in the form of higher prices. Executives don't have to make so much! The company doesn't have to pump up its stock price! These are choices we've made in the legal system we've created.)

It shouldn't be Walmarts job to solve societal problems. It should be Walmart's job to deliver the goods and services its customers like as efficiently as possible. I know it is a long thread now, but I have already given my opinion on every point you raised - including how executive compensation is not the boogeyman you think it is.

All costs to business are passed along to the consumer.
If company has:
Revenue: $10
Expenses: $9
Profit: $1 (10%)

You can dump $10 more dollars of expenses (wages) on that company, and in the very short term they may lose some money but in the longer term you will end up with something similar to:

Revenue $21.10
Expenses $19
Profit $2.1 (10%)

Profit will always trend toward a level that is the maximum their competitive moats can accommodate.

[Simpleton]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

Can you prove this hypothesis about higher minimum wage accelerating automation (that's coming anyway)?

The minimum wage in Canada is twice that of the US.  Are our cashiers being automated away at a faster rate than American ones?

In the retail chain I work at, 55% of transactions are processed through self checkout. My personal store where its a younger demographic we do north of 70%. Pandemic has certainly increased the adoption.

We are projecting 65% as a company by 2022

Cash enabled machines will take this further. In development.

Canada

[GuitarStv]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

Can you prove this hypothesis about higher minimum wage accelerating automation (that's coming anyway)?

The minimum wage in Canada is twice that of the US.  Are our cashiers being automated away at a faster rate than American ones?

In the retail chain I work at, 55% of transactions are processed through self checkout. My personal store where its a younger demographic we do north of 70%. Pandemic has certainly increased the adoption.

We are projecting 65% by 2022

Cash enabled machines will take this further. In development.

Canada

Right . . . but is this significantly different from the US?  Because the argument being made is that minimum wage causes faster automation.  So I'd expect that since our minimum wage is twice what the US has, that we would be much more advanced in our automation of these jobs in comparison to the US.

[Simpleton]

This interview with Gundluch is interesting on inflation, QE, etc - if you have not seen it already

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gundlach-there-are-reasons-to-be-worried-about-inflation-100732010.html

I particularly liked this line:
"I think the Fed is most content when the inflation rate is higher than the bond yields, all the way across the yield curve, which they've managed to accomplish," he said. "So they're trying to make people not scared about inflation by calling it 'transitory.' But how do they know? How does anybody know whether it's transitory or not given the unusual circumstances that we're in?"

I think this mirrors my opinion that this is the goal.

[Simpleton]

Right . . . but is this significantly different from the US?  Because the argument being made is that minimum wage causes faster automation.  So I'd expect that since our minimum wage is twice what the US has, that we would be much more advanced in our automation of these jobs in comparison to the US.

I am not sure because there are limits currently to adoption, so I am not sure if we can be double.

For instance in my chain, we have already essentially automated away any time of the day that we need more than 1 cashier.

But we still need 1, so we cant go much further than that. People need to do returns etc.

Not all wage increases get automated away, some is passed along in higher costs.

It certainly seemed the case to me that there was added urgency put behind this initiative a few years ago when Minimum wage in Ontario jumped from $11.60 to $14.

[GuitarStv]

Right . . . but is this significantly different from the US?  Because the argument being made is that minimum wage causes faster automation.  So I'd expect that since our minimum wage is twice what the US has, that we would be much more advanced in our automation of these jobs in comparison to the US.

I am not sure because there are limits currently to adoption, so I am not sure if we can be double.

For instance in my chain, we have already essentially automated away any time of the day that we need more than 1 cashier.

But we still need 1, so we cant go much further than that. People need to do returns etc.

Not all wage increases get automated away, some is passed along in higher costs.

It certainly seemed the case to me that there was added urgency put behind this initiative a few years ago when Minimum wage in Ontario jumped from $11.60 to $14.

So . . . little to no real difference in minimum wage impact upon automation then?

[Simpleton]

Right . . . but is this significantly different from the US?  Because the argument being made is that minimum wage causes faster automation.  So I'd expect that since our minimum wage is twice what the US has, that we would be much more advanced in our automation of these jobs in comparison to the US.

I am not sure because there are limits currently to adoption, so I am not sure if we can be double.

For instance in my chain, we have already essentially automated away any time of the day that we need more than 1 cashier.

But we still need 1, so we cant go much further than that. People need to do returns etc.

Not all wage increases get automated away, some is passed along in higher costs.

It certainly seemed the case to me that there was added urgency put behind this initiative a few years ago when Minimum wage in Ontario jumped from $11.60 to $14.

So . . . little to no real difference in minimum wage impact upon automation then?

No quite the opposite. I mean at 55% adoption we have already automated away what we can for now.

Almost all of the stores that got these self checkouts got them in the last few years though, and the rollout of them accelerated when minimum wage took a big jump. It absolutely had an impact.

What I was saying is that I think we have for now reached the extent (at my chain) of the possible impact from self checkouts.

With further investment it could improve - cash enabled machines, automated lottery machines etc. would allow us to do without the cashier.

Check out this commercial - this is the future for sure if you havn't seen it. Probably still a decade off for any significant deployment of systems like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmMk1Myrxc

[GuitarStv]

Right . . . but is this significantly different from the US?  Because the argument being made is that minimum wage causes faster automation.  So I'd expect that since our minimum wage is twice what the US has, that we would be much more advanced in our automation of these jobs in comparison to the US.

I am not sure because there are limits currently to adoption, so I am not sure if we can be double.

For instance in my chain, we have already essentially automated away any time of the day that we need more than 1 cashier.

But we still need 1, so we cant go much further than that. People need to do returns etc.

Not all wage increases get automated away, some is passed along in higher costs.

It certainly seemed the case to me that there was added urgency put behind this initiative a few years ago when Minimum wage in Ontario jumped from $11.60 to $14.

So . . . little to no real difference in minimum wage impact upon automation then?

No quite the opposite. I mean at 55% adoption we have already automated away what we can for now.

Almost all of the stores that got these self checkouts got them in the last few years though, and the rollout of them accelerated when minimum wage took a big jump. It absolutely had an impact.

What I was saying is that I think we have for now reached the extent (at my chain) of the possible impact from self checkouts.

That sounds a lot like the same rollout that has occurred in the US.  Even though they have half the minimum wage.

But let's be charitable and assume that Canada is 1 year ahead of the US on this . . . is one year of protecting lower paid jobs really a benefit that we need to be worried about when discussing minimum wage?  I'd argue no.  Doubling minimum wage has effectively provided no difference as far as automation goes.

[Simpleton]

But let's be charitable and assume that Canada is 1 year ahead of the US on this . . . is one year of protecting lower paid jobs really a benefit that we need to be worried about when discussing minimum wage?  I'd argue no.  Doubling minimum wage has effectively provided no difference as far as automation goes.

Part of it is just progress. I will grant you that.

There is nothing inherently noble about having someone do a job that quite frankly doesn't need to be done. We can go back to the classic example of tilling the fields vs using a tractor.

I do think that the incentive to create disruptive technologies accelerates with enhanced minimum wage (or enhanced wages in any position). There is a breakeven calculation of making an upfront investment/maintenance costs that surely tilts one way or another based on the wage of the employee. Ultimately though the automation is coming - so I grant you that its a temporary effect.

That is an interesting perspective to look at it from because you could say that enhancing wage leads to faster technological progress which is great in the long term.

[djadziadax]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

Can you prove this hypothesis about higher minimum wage accelerating automation (that's coming anyway)?

The minimum wage in Canada is twice that of the US.  Are our cashiers being automated away at a faster rate than American ones?

Analysis from 2019....
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/automation-in-retail-an-executive-overview-for-getting-ready

Not sure if you have been in any US supermarket or drug store lately - there are at least as many self checkouts as they are number of cashier lanes, and usually only 2-3 cashier lanes are staff with 4-5 not staffed (I have seen it where it is only 1 staffed).

As for Canada, I do not have current observations, but when I lived in Toronto in 2014, I was stunned to see that at TD Bank on Bloor St. (77 Bloor St W, Toronto, ON M5S 1M2, Canada), in the heart of Toronto!, you were not able to make a deposit (or was it withdrawal) through a ATM. Even at that time (it is even worse now) in the US you would never ever needed to see a bank clerk for simple transactions. In fact, when I was there to open an account, there was a line of at least 15 people waiting to see a clerk. This is unheard of in the US as bank clerks are few and far in between because there is no need for them. Chase Bank for example, in a branch I frequent, has added 5 new ATMs and are down to 1 clerk. Same in retail.

[JLee]

Actually the minimum age of a cashier now at Wal-mart is something like 6 months...at our local store they almost entirely have been replaced with self checkout machines.  There are something like 40 self checkout kiosks and just 2 cashier lanes now.

Probably automation taking lower end jobs

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

Can you prove this hypothesis about higher minimum wage accelerating automation (that's coming anyway)?

The minimum wage in Canada is twice that of the US.  Are our cashiers being automated away at a faster rate than American ones?

Analysis from 2019....
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/automation-in-retail-an-executive-overview-for-getting-ready

Not sure if you have been in any US supermarket or drug store lately - there are at least as many self checkouts as they are number of cashier lanes, and usually only 2-3 cashier lanes are staff with 4-5 not staffed (I have seen it where it is only 1 staffed).

As for Canada, I do not have current observations, but when I lived in Toronto in 2014, I was stunned to see that at TD Bank on Bloor St. (77 Bloor St W, Toronto, ON M5S 1M2, Canada), in the heart of Toronto!, you were not able to make a deposit (or was it withdrawal) through a ATM. Even at that time (it is even worse now) in the US you would never ever needed to see a bank clerk for simple transactions. In fact, when I was there to open an account, there was a line of at least 15 people waiting to see a clerk. This is unheard of in the US as bank clerks are few and far in between because there is no need for them. Chase Bank for example, in a branch I frequent, has added 5 new ATMs and are down to 1 clerk. Same in retail.

That reinforces GuitarStv's point, that the US is automating already despite the minimum wage remaining at $7.25/hr.

[djadziadax]

Don't forget that US Fed min wage does not apply to all states. To Simpelton's point, I am not sure chains here are at 50% or 60-70% automated yet but it seems to have accelerated in the past couple years as different states adopt much higher min wage. So you may see discrepancies by state in automation - US is not a homogenious market.

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

[PDXTabs]

I noticed that the I-Bond inflation component is now 3.54%:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds_iratesandterms.htm

[the_gastropod]

All costs to business are passed along to the consumer.
If company has:
Revenue: $10
Expenses: $9
Profit: $1 (10%)

You can dump $10 more dollars of expenses (wages) on that company, and in the very short term they may lose some money but in the longer term you will end up with something similar to:

Revenue $21.10
Expenses $19
Profit $2.1 (10%)

Profit will always trend toward a level that is the maximum their competitive moats can accommodate.

Though this is a little economics-style "assuming a horse is a perfect sphere" hand-wavy, let's assume this is roughly accurate. What's been stated repeatedly is: Walmart is able to exploit the status-quo by relying on the U.S. government to feed its employees. Competitors (e.g., Costco) that pay living wages do not have this advantage. By forcing Walmart to pay living wages by law, their "maximum competive moat" will not accommodate the same profit level as before.

[Telecaster]

This is a very good point, as most cashier jobs will be gone.

And remember, how do you "tax" robots (automated cashier) that took the tax base of 3 jobs? Those eliminated jobs are no longer providing a tax base for local or fed gov. Now, multiply that by all cashiers, all Amazon fulfillment center jobs, farm hands, car factories, waiters (you can now enter your order online, and someone can just bring it to the table)etc etc. It movement will accelerate much faster if min-wage is lifted even higher.

Just one more variable in the debate about min-wage.

Automation has been going for centuries.   We're now at the most automated state we've ever been and prior to COVID the unemployment rate was lower than many economists thought possible.  So what's happening?   Although there are winners and losers, in general history shows that automation frees up workers to do higher value work and makes stuff cost less, improving standards of living.   Overall automation does not kill jobs.  It might kill specific jobs and it sucks if yours if one of them, but overall it doesn't reduce employment.   

The jobs that are most suitable to automation tend to be tedious and repetitive.  Having robots do those jobs seems like a good thing.  Again, not everyone benefits so we should take steps to prevent societal disruption but in general I view automation as a good thing. 

[djadziadax]

That reinforces GuitarStv's point, that the US is automating already despite the minimum wage remaining at $7.25/hr.
[/quote]

My example for Canada was for the banking industry - at that time, there were not self-checkouts in retail even in the US. I do not know what bank clerks in Canada were paid in 2014 compared to bank clerks in the US at that time, but at present it seems both countries pay about the same adjusted for the CAD/USD pair. Automation of those jobs in the US started earlier than in CA.

The point is that business try to control all cost, one of which is labor, through any means they can - manifacturing outsourced, retail will automate, as labor costs are easiest to control through layoffs and automation.

[mckaylabaloney]

My example for Canada was for the banking industry - at that time, there were not self-checkouts in retail even in the US.

You were talking about 2014, right? That's incorrect. I mean, I can't speak for all regions of the U.S., but I worked in a Walmart (at a fast food store within the Walmart) from something like 2003 to 2007 and my Walmart had self-checkout kiosks at that time. (This page claims that self-checkout was prevalent in U.S. retail by 2003: https://www.qikserve.com/self-service-tech-a-history/.) By 2012, Walmart was already experimenting with self-checkout via smartphone: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2012-08-31-sns-rt-us-walmart-iphones-checkoutbre87u11r-20120831-story.html.

ETA: Also just remembered that my hometown got a Target in maybe...2005ish? Somewhere around there. And it had self-checkout stations when it opened.

[Simpleton]

All costs to business are passed along to the consumer.
If company has:
Revenue: $10
Expenses: $9
Profit: $1 (10%)

You can dump $10 more dollars of expenses (wages) on that company, and in the very short term they may lose some money but in the longer term you will end up with something similar to:

Revenue $21.10
Expenses $19
Profit $2.1 (10%)

Profit will always trend toward a level that is the maximum their competitive moats can accommodate.

Though this is a little economics-style "assuming a horse is a perfect sphere" hand-wavy, let's assume this is roughly accurate. What's been stated repeatedly is: Walmart is able to exploit the status-quo by relying on the U.S. government to feed its employees. Competitors (e.g., Costco) that pay living wages do not have this advantage. By forcing Walmart to pay living wages by law, their "maximum competive moat" will not accommodate the same profit level as before.

I would say that costco and walmart are operating in very different market segments with very different demographics of customers and employees, and very different service levels.

I would be willing to bet that walmarts product loss expense is 1-2% of sales higher than costco's right from the start. Membership and info are a huge disincentive to shoplift from a place.

Probably less returns @ costco, less customer service overall @ costco, much higher revenue per man hour.

In particular I would venture to guess that If you raised minimum wages to Costco level, you would quickly see costco pass along increases to its employees, and that be reflected in the prices at both companies.

[Metalcat]

I think the great fallacy we all succumb to is the belief that we can effectively understand economics and human psychology well enough to predict the effects of policy changes.

In essence, they should be more like experiments, and we try to gather data from them, and then apply them at a larger scale, and then see how the scale affects the outcome, too!

Even looking back at various nation-states and trying to draw conclusions and re-apply them to other nation-states in different times, with different variables...

So, optimistically, we tend to want roughly the same things for people, even if we disagree on techniques.

There can never be true "equal" opportunity. Genetics, behavior of family members, uniqueness of role model/educator behavior, etc.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, equal outcome would require essentially taking all available resources, dividing them by number of people, giving everyone exactly the same amount of each. At best, equal money and then you have leeway on spending choices.

So (should we and) can we make opportunity more equivalent and maintain higher socioeconomic mobility through policy, without using heavy-handed outcome redistribution?

The real boogeyman of capitalism, of the "free and open market" (and of libertarianism) is that if you remove collective power, what's left is accumulated power, which is massively imbalanced. The market doesn't lend itself to equivalent opportunity to someone who isn't given all the privileges and advantages, because the market behavior is not "free and open", but rather shaped in large part by those with large amounts of accumulated power. They influence policy. They influence negotiation. They use information asymmetry and propaganda effectively.

It's interesting how we can have very different perceptions of what is fair. If we are "ahead" in having accumulated power, it's easier to worry that redistribution of power will take something away from us. So while likely no one in this thread has a net worth higher than $5 million, some still worry that actions that would take more from those with great wealth would also hurt them. Enough that they argue against helping those with a negative net worth and income less than $15/hour.

If we were at school lunch, and we wanted everyone to eat well, and some kids had literally crumbs, and some had 200 pizzas, would we argue the kid with 200 pizzas maybe should be made to give up some pizza? This is, of course, different than money, thanks to spoilage. Put it differently, if 200 kids in the wild had nothing to eat, and one kid had 50 pizzas... what would happen? Best case, that one kid has the foresight to share. Next best case, 200 kids agree to create collective power, and force sharing to happen equally. Most likely... the variable we didn't explicitly define... some kids who had greater influence over the others, perhaps a small band that agreed to share power... takes the pizza, keeps most of it for themselves, gives the minimum needed to the rest to keep them from rebelling and ganging up...

We are not children. Money is not pizza. It's often not even survival, though sometimes it is. We are adults. We could decide to split 50 pizzas a bit more evenly - at least make sure everyone gets a slice and doesn't freeze to death in the night, or go without critical shelter and medicine. And it would affect, numbers-wise, the few adults who seem to have unimaginably more pizza than anyone else more (we would take more from them) but... we argue because they are better at hoarding pizza for the few, that it's better for the masses?

I know... my posts are a bit deconstructionist and winding, so if it makes no sense and doesn't advance the conversation, I apologize. But I had the interest to play with these thoughts for a bit.

Nono, it's a good post. A very good post indeed. 5 stars.

[Simpleton]

Put it differently, if 200 kids in the wild had nothing to eat, and one kid had 50 pizzas... what would happen? Best case, that one kid has the foresight to share. Next best case, 200 kids agree to create collective power, and force sharing to happen equally.

Money is not pizza. Wealth is not finite.

Teaching 200 kids that the best way to get pizza (fish) is to take it from the one who has 50 pizzas (fish) only works for one meal.

Teach the kids to fish, teach them to make pizza

Setup processes that enhance the pizza making or fishing processes so that one industrious kid gets 300 pizzas and the rest each have several, but they all have equal ability to make them or catch them.

[djadziadax]

My example for Canada was for the banking industry - at that time, there were not self-checkouts in retail even in the US.

You were talking about 2014, right? That's incorrect. I mean, I can't speak for all regions of the U.S., but I worked in a Walmart (at a fast food store within the Walmart) from something like 2003 to 2007 and my Walmart had self-checkout kiosks at that time. (This page claims that self-checkout was prevalent in U.S. retail by 2003: https://www.qikserve.com/self-service-tech-a-history/.) By 2012, Walmart was already experimenting with self-checkout via smartphone: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2012-08-31-sns-rt-us-walmart-iphones-checkoutbre87u11r-20120831-story.html.

ETA: Also just remembered that my hometown got a Target in maybe...2005ish? Somewhere around there. And it had self-checkout stations when it opened.

You are absolutely right! Now that you said it, I remember having self checkouts in 2014 in a Giant store in Baltimore.

[Simpleton]

But in this bizarre scenario I've concocted where , among starving children....

I have to say you write quite well but it is hard to respond to in the form I have traditionally been by quoting point by point. To make my response in point form I think will serve the purpose, and I will try to keep it in order in which you made the points in your comment.

1. In paragraph one, again I think you are asserting that only the one kid has all the means of production in society. I don't think this is the case in reality. I further don't think anyone in this thread has argued that reasonable taxes and redistribution shouldn't occur. I also think there has been consensus in growing opportunity for all.

2. Paragraph 2/3 seems to be essentially the same. Essentially this speaks to the need for some level of taxes in society. Agree.

3. Paragraph 4 I think is where we get back to the original discussion of the thread - Inflation. I think the fact that this is debated still means it is not settled science. My assertion would be that increasing minimum wage has to increase inflation in some way, but it IS muddy. There are lots of classic examples in ancient history of kings/emporers confiscating the coinage, and diluting the silver with less valuable metals, or even stamping a "2" on the coins. Essentially all we are doing by raising minimum wage is taking an hour of labor, and stamping "15" on it instead of "7.5". It is still an hour of labor; its intrinsic value has not changed.

4. Line or paragraph 5 and Paragraph 6 - I agree with you entirely. It is impossible to measure the value a CEO. In one of my prior comments I had said my position would be that it is up to the shareholders to decide this value. They are the one buying the CEO's efforts.

5. Paragraph 7 and the final line - Accumulation of capital should lead to exponential gains, this is a good thing in my view. Again, the caveat that we ensure reasonably equal opportunity etc.

[JLee]

But in this bizarre scenario I've concocted where , among starving children....

I have to say you write quite well but it is hard to respond to in the form I have traditionally been by quoting point by point. To make my response in point form I think will serve the purpose, and I will try to keep it in order in which you made the points in your comment.

1. In paragraph one, again I think you are asserting that only the one kid has all the means of production in society. I don't think this is the case in reality. I further don't think anyone in this thread has argued that reasonable taxes and redistribution shouldn't occur. I also think there has been consensus in growing opportunity for all.

2. Paragraph 2/3 seems to be essentially the same. Essentially this speaks to the need for some level of taxes in society. Agree.

3. Paragraph 4 I think is where we get back to the original discussion of the thread - Inflation. I think the fact that this is debated still means it is not settled science. My assertion would be that increasing minimum wage has to increase inflation in some way, but it IS muddy. There are lots of classic examples in ancient history of kings/emporers confiscating the coinage, and diluting the silver with less valuable metals, or even stamping a "2" on the coins. Essentially all we are doing by raising minimum wage is taking an hour of labor, and stamping "15" on it instead of "7.5". It is still an hour of labor; its intrinsic value has not changed.

4. Line or paragraph 5 and Paragraph 6 - I agree with you entirely. It is impossible to measure the value a CEO. In one of my prior comments I had said my position would be that it is up to the shareholders to decide this value. They are the one buying the CEO's efforts.

5. Paragraph 7 and the final line - Accumulation of capital should lead to exponential gains, this is a good thing in my view. Again, the caveat that we ensure reasonably equal opportunity etc.

It seems that the entire argument here is based on the premise that we have reasonably equal opportunity for all, which we clearly do not.

I do not understand how you can simultaneously argue that the intrinsic value of an hour of labor does not change based on how many dollars it earns, yet you are okay with exploding CEO pay and claim that increasing the minimum wage will cause inflation.  Enabling people to afford basic necessities of life will somehow cause inflation, but pumping trillions into the hands of the rich will not?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

[Simpleton]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

[Simpleton]

I do not understand how you can simultaneously argue that the intrinsic value of an hour of labor does not change based on how many dollars it earns, yet you are okay with exploding CEO pay and claim that increasing the minimum wage will cause inflation.  Enabling people to afford basic necessities of life will somehow cause inflation, but pumping trillions into the hands of the rich will not?

The value of something should be what is freely exchanged for it.

All sorts of distortions occur when you use the political process to manipulate the freely exchanged rate. Inflation, job loss, price changes, service reductions.

This is why its so muddy and difficult and interesting to discuss the outcomes of these (poor) policy enactments.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

I would agree with your last line, except that I think it's more honest to say that the three biggest factors are your own actions, your genes and your childhood environment.

We need to do everything we can to ensure equality (of outcome) in relation to the third - the childhood environment. We need to be spending way more to give each kid better and more universal tuition, healthcare, etc

The rest is up to the individual and I don't see why we need to equalise for anything else. Again, besides having a welfare safety net.

[Simpleton]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

I would agree with your last line, except that I think it's more honest to say that the three biggest factors are your own actions, your genes and your childhood environment.

We need to do everything we can to ensure equality (of outcome) in relation to the third - the childhood environment. We need to be spending way more to give each kid better and more universal tuition, healthcare, etc

The rest is up to the individual and I don't see why we need to equalise for anything else. Again, besides having a welfare safety net.

Agree 100%

I realized as I was re-reading my own post that my last point may over emphasize the role of ones own actions.

I do think it is still the biggest factor, but the others you mentioned are certainly big factors as well. Luck also plays a big role for sure.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that people need to focus more on what they can control. People should put more emphasis on improving their own circumstances rather than pointing the finger and waiting for someone else to fix it. Society should focus on enabling people to improve their own circumstances, and not simply transferring success from one group to the next.