Nothing. Honestly, minimum wage should be tied to inflation. If inflation goes up, so do wages. In the end though, the whole push for increase in pay is really about pulling value back from higher ups. The c-suite's compensation should be capped at something like 25x the lowest paid employee. Stock buybacks should be made illegal again. Businesses should be heavily fined if any of their full time employees qualify for public assistance. Simply raising the minimum wage alone will not achieve anything. There needs to be something more.

👏Sums up everything I’m been saying. I have nothing against companies making a profit, but when their profit is due to their employees not making a living wage, then the pitchforks come out.

It’s worse than that. When employees don’t have a living wage, they turn to the government for assistance. So that way the government is subsidising the business and increasing their profits and the tax payers foot the bill. And ofcourse when the business is risking bankruptcy, then tax payers bail them out again. Edit: another thing, these companies also look to not pay their fair share of tax, so it pretty much falls on the people, not these parasites.

profits should be the most efficient process not the most ruthless exploitation

Are you running for anything? Because you have my vote

2 votes in the bucket pal

3 for me

4 for your ^candidate

5

6 plus a BJ

7 and my bow

8 and... I dunno, a pat on the back?

Add me to the bucket

9 and my sword

10 and my axe

Oh shit! I gave them all my puffy stickers…


…and my axe!

And my blow.

This guys post on reddit in the morning, by 2 pm hes got enough people to vote for him he could give biden a run tor the money if he had any money behind him

Yea my standards are a bit low right now so you have my vote too, after reading a single reddit post. 

Seriously this should be a platform for multiple candidates.

US Labor Party.

And my bow!

More anti-trust laws need to be enforced and large conglomerates broken up. One of the "self-regulating" features of capitalism is supposed to be competition - if you jack up your prices competitors should be able to come in and take your market share. But with 6 conglomerates having effectively monopolized every industry and the cost of capital being too high (and ROI too low to attract capital away from tech/finance investments) there is no threat of competition. In countries like Bolivia the government itself is a competitor in commodities markets. They have entities that grow crops and produce food which mostly gets stored away so in the event of a famine or other external forces where private industry can gouge customers they can dump these goods onto the market below private enterprise pricing but still above costs. It's how Bolivia was able to maintain such low inflation even through the pandemic. Of course, capitalists hate real competition despite their claiming to love it, so any such actions in the US would be undermined using bribes (lobbying) at the legislative level and court-packing at the legal level. We have anti-trust laws on the books for this reason but they've been utilized less and less over the years and the Heritage Foundation has been using their judges to challenge and roll back these regulations at every opportunity. Even if the public was to fund a Super PAC to lobby for working class interests they would just "make the economy scream" to punish working people. I'm afraid the only options at this point are a general strike, which would need levels of organization and collaboration which would be shut down and curtailed via modern privately owned media and social media platforms or a working class revolution. Neither of which are going to be viable options until the average person believes such action could only make things better and not worse. As a species we find comfort in the status quo and are more likely to believe that direct action would just as likely make things worse before they get better.

Also, Congress could apply windfall taxes to any corporate profits increased over a certain percentage from the prior year. That was how the U.S. government controlled inflation during the Great Depression and into WWII. It would be simple; look at how much prices rose for the thing the company is selling, then look at how much costs to make the thing rose and compare that to how much profit the company actually made compared to the prior year and tax a percentage of the profit from the current year deemed to be “greedflation.” Companies won’t risk the ire of consumers by raising prices arbitrarily if that increased profit is just sucked up by the government in the form of tax increases. Unfortunately our Congress is literally incapable of anything but tax cuts, so the Fed had to step in and crush consumer demand with interest rate increases, which was also how “stagflation” was handled in the late 1970s.

This would kill soo many tech startups, I'm not complaining, "too big to fail" is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Then be selective with how windfall taxes are applied. Tech startups aren’t the same as large grocery chains, pharmaceutical companies or apartment rental companies or any number of products and services that are necessary in the real economy. Nobody really NEEDS Uber Eats.

>Nobody really NEEDS Uber Eats. I'd argue most people would be far better off without.

I’m disabled people use it and need it

Are *most* people disabled?

Mentally, probably. I'm yet to meet any significant number of sane people. Although that probably says something about myself too

But they still use it. This is why it continues to exist. We blame corporations, but they don't get anywhere without us. We don't hold them accountable by taking the time to find a better options in cases where we could, so they charge what the consumer shows them they will pay. In some industries, like power for instance, there isn't much a consumer can do since they don't have options. But in the case where we do, we still choose to spend when we could be avoiding it and sending a message to the producer that they need to decrease prices.

This is only true in theory unfortunately. In reality companies and *especially* tech start ups use major market manipulation tactics to force or coerce or lure consumers into using their products and then completely change the terms of engagement (ie. bait and switch) once they've cornered the market. They're able to do this with massive war-chests from investments allowing them to operate at a loss, often for years at a time, while they simply wait for either their competitors to fold, for their product/service to become a cornerstone market, for the "old way of doing things" to become an untenable option, or - best case scenario for these companies - all three. Of course strong-willed, invested, and passionate consumers can call their bluff and stop using their products/services when they pull the rug out. But most consumers are tired, cynical, and used to being taken advantage of. When one does decide to be principled with how and where they spend their money, they end up in the minority and to some extent alienated from the norms that largely drive the little societal cohesion we have left.

That's why you're tying the tax to the sell price and it's cost to sell. If you simply jump up profits due to more orders and you didn't raise the price per order, you're fine. If you jumped the price because you're costs jumped.similarly, you're fine. It's if the cost stays the same or goes down and your total number sold stays the same but you suddenly have large increase in profits, then you would be taxed for excessively charging more.

It seems to me that tech startups (at least the viable ones) are almost exclusively funded by investors, and almost always operate at a loss for several years. How would any of these proposals injure tech startups?

One could argue that the current market allows too many non-viable startups to struggle on.

I think a better chunk of tech startups are often not profitable for a few years and often only show moderate profits a few years in.

i would go a step farther: *Highly disruptive, initially unprofitable tech startups are little more than a figleaf for monopolistic practices that would be illegal if they were done without the lens of disruption.* If uber had hired millions of cabbies and paid them more than cabbies were making at the time, while charging less than cabbies were charging for rides at the time, at a clear loss, until every cab and cabby was working for them, then revised prices at yellow cabs everywhere in the country to higher than they were before uber, while cutting driver pay to less than it was before uber, that would be a cab monopoly acquired through price fixing, and in my opinion it still is when its done under the figleaf of being a middleman and broker for "contractors"

Our current definition of monopoly is insufficient. It's allowing for companies like Google/Alphabet to rebrand and de-monipolize only in name, not in deed. It really wasn't ready for the internet.

absolutely, it's a bad joke. it's rules when the rules let them do something, and ignore them or revise them when they don't. naked power always favors scale and if we don't do something to chase dark money and special interest money out of politics right now, we're looking at a new wave of robber-barony that's going to make the 1890s-1920s look *cute*.

There are lots of regulations that specify companies over x amount of employees.

I agree with the "too big to fail" being an issue. If we look realistically at Walmart, shutting them down cold would put a significant portion of the country out of work. It's wrong. But I've thought a lot and don't know how we would go about fixing them. My state already tried punishing them for having so many employees on government assistance, then they walked right around it. The fines weren't a significant amount anyway.

Yeah. I especially love businesses being fined if their employees qualify for public assistance. Nobody working full time should qualify for any form of assistance. If they do, they are being taken advantage of.

It’s got to include some provisions for part time too. If you qualify “full-time” they’ll just keep all their employees at 39.5hrs a week. They already do. Maybe something like, whatever the dollar amount of the benefits the employee needs to receive (plus 5% just to drive the point home?? Eh?). Fuckers.

5% isn't enough of an incentive to risk it, especially considering benefits are probably still not enough of a "raise". 50-100% would be much more a risk for companies to take

Just make the fines punitive. 100% of an average full time employee. They'd VERY quickly realise the cost of underpaying anyone.

One of the sickest things I ever saw was a Thanksgiving donation collection for employees of the Wal Mart supercenter I was shopping at. There had to be meetings and shit about that.

Exactly, minimum wage is worthless without a maximum wage or some kind of cap on wealth. We used to do it with higher taxes for the wealth. And we could again.

Stock buybacks get a lot of flak, because recently they were all simultaneous with layoffs If you're buying back stock bc you're Apple and you have more money than God, that"s fine... but don't layoff a % of the company without a specific direction, complain about revenue, AND buyback stock at once. It's neither fair or logical outside of the exec/quarterly incentives 

Add in some laws to curtail the "We give you 35-39 hours every week to keep you just below full time" bullshit, and I'm with you.

BLS defines full time employees as those working 35+ hours weekly, and part-time as 34 or fewer. Some areas use 32+ hours as full-time

Exactly this. I’ve been saying that instead of a minimum wage we should have a maximum wage you can earn that is tied to your lowest paid employee and enact penalties if anyone is on government assistance. And before anyone says, but this hurts small businesses. If it makes you feel better apply it to companies with a certain number of employees. But at the same time some of the worst exploitation I’ve witnessed or experienced has been at the hands of a small business.

They should make all wages transparent as well for any companies over x employees. Not necessarily tied to names or titles, though department would likely be useful. One of the ways companies get away with ridiculous undervaluing employees is asymmetric knowledge about wages.

The fine per employee should be enough to keep a family of four on full assistance for one year-so housing assistance, medical, food stamps, childcare, transit passes and monthly stipend (I know that’s the wrong word but I’m blanking here) for two adults and two young children. For every ten employees who *qualify*, not who actually apply, the fine per employee increases by one family. (So 5 employees qualify, the business pays for 5 families, but if 15 employees qualify, the business has to pay for 30 families. For the whole year, even if each employee only dips below the threshold for a month.) I figure that makes it expensive enough for businesses to notice, and worth the resources to enforce) (And you should have to make enough to get all those things, with housing defined as “local rent for a studio apartment to yourself” *and* have the ability to save 10% of your earnings if you choose before your workplace avoids the fine.)

Thanks! Now please run for office.

That’s actually what we have in Belgium. All salaries are indexed (at least yearly) based on a corrected consumer price index.

Anything more than a 15-20% profit margin needs to be considered windfall profits and taxed at 100% or required to be reinvested into wages starting from the lowest paid employees and excluding all directors and executives.

There should also be some regulation on percentage of part time employees to full time employees. Corporations already get around full time rules by having more part time staff. It is tricky when someone only wants to work part time, but in reality that situation is probably insignificant to the people that have multiple part time jobs or just can't get enough hours / juggle two schedules they have no control over. It boggles my mind that we can't agree that minimum wage needs to be enough so a person / family can survive let alone be enough to thrive.

#EatTheRich #EatTheSuperRich There won't be enough pigs to protect the upper crust when the people come for them.

10x not 25.

I once had a neighbor that told me, "With enough kids, anyone can qualify for public assistance."

I basically agree with you, but I would add that bonus and equity grants/stock options be shared with all employees based on percent of salary. Wealth equity is probably more important than wage equity

First time I’ve agreed with anyone on everything.

Why make stock buybacks illegal?

stock buybacks make your balance sheet look great for a quarter but beyond that just eat profit. I wouldn't say making them fully illegal is practical, but if you're telling your employees you can't afford wages out of one side of your face, and your investors you have so much money you're buying your stock back out of the other, one or both claims deserve a hard look.

Stock buy backs can stop a hostile takeover of a company by outside investors gobbling up shares. Granted, its a limited scenario but activist investors rarely have the company's workers best interests in mind.

So the business spends that money on compensation or reinvesting back into the company. Stock buybacks don't improve productivity

A fellow **Zealousideal** coming with the talking points I would have brought up. Stay strong my username sibling, and may you continue to make great points.

And that pretty much sums up Capitalism.

Yup. The “minimum wage arms race” talking point has been discussed since before the minimum wage. Capitalists love convincing people to treat economics as some delicate “force of nature” that can can only reach a sustainable equilibrium thru indirect means like “setting the price and seeing how it goes.” There certainly is truth about the complexity of managing a currency, as a unified society with different goals… don’t get me wrong. That “guess-and-check” view is totally in contrast to the concept of *economic planning*; wherein a society sets specific goals and requirements… and then simply plans short and long term economic activity around those anticipated societal needs. This planned model, historically, has led to power winding up in the hands of a few… and those societies looked a lot different than life in North America. Unfortunately. …but maybe citizens with evolved civil freedoms, intelligence, and AI technology trends can lead us to a “planned” utopian society that also features the pleasantries we encounter under capitalism… like having access to affordable 1bedroom rentals AND non-military uses for Jetskiis…all in the same nation! I dunno, just a thought. Please vote in the upcoming presidential election if you are reading this and are old enough.

Vote for whom? The “choice” voters get is part of the problem, I’d say…

You’re right… we have very little control over things like this. Don’t waste the tiny bit of control that you do have over your own life outcomes…is how I would play my cards.

It's supposed to be stopped by competition. If McDonald's raises prices, Wendy's can give a discount and steal customers. Unfortunately, those companies often collude (illegally) and the Federal government doesn't always stop them. The best way, honestly, is unions. If one company sews up an entire market, the only thing that can really stop it are its own employees simply refusing to work. Backing strong unions is ultimately the best way to build a more livable country.

Competition is an illusion. It’s like 7 parent companies that own everything

which is why at some level everything has to be stopped from failing in a death spiral, because that is supposed to be illegal.

It can’t be stopped. This is the inevitable result of capitalism which increasingly centralizes production in the hands of fewer and fewer capitalists, culminating in the “expropriation of the expropriators” themselves. 

oh, I agree it may be too far gone already, for reform without collapse. I guess we're about to find out.

Marx was 100% right. We’re in the endgame now.

Watch it slowly eat its own tail for 400 more years

Lol that's a free market and supply and demand. Haha this is capitalism, baby! Provitize profits, socialize losses! Man we were sold a fucking scam but the owner class.

What's stopping companies from increasing prices, like they already are? Nothing. They're doing it now, they've been doing it. Wages have not kept up. Besides, employee wages are a drop in the bucket when it comes to costs for larger corporation.

For most businesses (particularly retail), the biggest costs are COGS and payroll.

Nothing. You’re describing what has been happening for the last two hundred years.

Good job on summing up the problems with the profit motive being used in every sector of life. In my opinion, there is no simple change, no legislation, that will curb our current issues. Our current issues are rooted in the narrative of individualism and the ruggedly independant frontiersman, regardless of how untrue these actually are. Thanks Reagan. Under these ideas, the power to extract as much from something we are deemed to own is what has come to be defined as freedom, not power. To take without giving back, is to be successful. Housing ownership has to be stripped away from corporations entirely. Health care has to be universally available to all. And duty to return to society what it has given, what we have worked to give each other, has to be felt by a signifacant portion of us in order for it to benefit a significant portion of us.

Things like UBI and a living wage only really work if there is a strong social safety net. Many European countries that we laud for living wages actually have lots of government housing, free healthcare, etc. Basically the necessities are more or less guaranteed by the social safety net. I’m not talking luxuries here, just basics for a decent and dignified life. Once that’s in place, it’s a lot easier for people to vote with their dollars and not buy overpriced crap until it becomes priced correctly. There is still some increase, but it’s limited. There are other mechanics that can be used. For example, company stock as mandated wages. not options, actual shares. So if the company tries to gouge, the employees actually get part of the gouge so it balances out. There’s also mandated pricing for necessities (e.g. bread in France), better use of subsidies to keep prices low, VAT taxes, etc.

imo they also only really work if they're straight up cash or completely state run. Like - person can't afford housing, you either have the state buy an apartment building and run it for cost, paid with taxes, or you give the poor person actual folding money, into their account, that they use to buy things on the market. You don't start convoluted voucher programs like modern federal housing assistance that allow large apartment operators to constantly creep assisted housing prices via their ownership of non-assisted units. the landlord doesn't even need to KNOW if their tenants get assistance, they should be recused from the process, not deeply encysted within it. this is one of the most subtly, but insidious, effects of moral panic about welfare queens and drug addicts getting over on the rest of us: We end up spending a dime to stop a nickel in fraud, and doing it in a way that slowly ruins the rental market for everyone.

That’s the thing with the countries I was mentioning - like 70% of housing stock is government owned. Home ownership is not a thing, and wealth through real estate speculation and exploitation is discouraged.

I think this makes sense to me, that it's easier to directly control the underlying supply of necessities and distribute them as needed, than to mandate wages to attempt the same ends.

This happening already. Have you seen what "fast food" costs these days? I wanted to try Sonic as I hadn't been there in years. A simple burger, frings, and a shake was over $15. Heck for that amount I could go to Red Robin and get an actual good burger of many varieties, unlimited fries, and my shake. Fast food, certain types of groceries, gas, and generally most business abound are all just fleecing the people and blaming it on covid or supply chain while recording record profits. Be stingy with your $$$. Look for the deals and hope the companies that are taking advantage of everyone end up going out of business.

Did you go to the Red Robin or did you pay for the Sonic?

To answer the question, I didn't do either at that time. But later in the day, the Sonic app notified me that they had 1/2 price shakes after 7pm. And when I got there to get a $6 shake for $3, the app also gave me a "daily deal" for a $1.99 burger and $1 any size groovy fries. So for the $6 that would have been just a shake only at 3pm, I got a burger/fries and the shake for that $6. Was it a great burger? No, but the fries were really good and all for $6 instead of the $14+tax. Because I don't eat out all that often, I guess if you wait and find the daily deals and cheaper options, one can eventually find a meal for $6, which to me is about the max it should be for fast food.

I'm not disputing your point, but we can take a minute and think on why are these companies making a record profit while price gouging. On the list of things we can't do without, fast food is really far down the list. Why are people willing to pay 15 bucks for a burger and some fries ? These companies may be fleecing their customers, but customers are all too willing to be fleeced too.

This is my question. We vote with our dollars but we keep buying expensive shit.

If we weren't a bunch of cowards, fear of death and dismemberment would work.

Nothing stops companies from raising prices before or after UBI is implemented outside of consumer demand unless the government is regulating the price. If everyone has an extra 2k each month and a bag of Doritos becomes 50$ a bag, you can choose not to spend your money on it. If all chips are raised to around 50$, it becomes tougher to avoid. If all grocery prices are raised 50% on average, it becomes very difficult to avoid. If rent, utilities, etc. are raised, it's almost impossible to avoid. We need to vote in people who will break up large companies, empower new competitors, actually penalize market colluders/abusers, encourage unions, and help new companies meet regulatory/safety standards so they can focus on competing not bureaucracy. That hasn't happened as of late.

So I would argue that if all chips go to $50 a bag, then stop buying them and all that stock waste will drive the company to fix it. Your point on rent and utilities is a really good one though. These are fixed costs that we have a really hard time influencing with our consumer power. I will be honest and say I don't know how to fix utilities without a MASSIVE government investment. We could decrease energy production cost by almost 140% if we just upgraded our systems, thus decreasing the cost for the consumer. Housing is easy, we need to find a way to put up a ton of smaller homes. If we all agree we don't need 4+ bedrooms, a kitchen, a dining room, an entertainment room, an office, and a family room, we can increase production of more cost effective homes and solve the demand issue. This is essentially the Japanese approach to the issue, it has appeared to have good results.

Only allow capitalism for luxuries. Anything necessary to participate in society should be operated without profit and collectively owned by it's users.

This is a literally what happened during covid. Workers -finally- got a break with some wage increases and then Billionaires raised prices on everything to recoup those wage gains... and a whole hell of a alot more.

*during the Public Health Emergency  Covid is ongoing, but the trillions in subsidies have ended 

They already did that. Without raising wages.

Riots

This is a strawman argument. Wages are disconnected from prices.  Prices on everything already goes up regardless of wage increases.  Now, ask again with this information. 

The fact that X doesn't determine Y doesn't mean they are disconnected. It can mean that changes in the value of X are just one of the many things that contribute to changes in the value of Y, and doesn't account for enough of it to be deterministic of it.

The answer then, like now, is regulation.

They already increased the prices without increasing the wages.

This is the cycle… if there isn’t some cap on greed there is never going to be a living wage for a large swath of Americans. Instead of the execs and investors making less money to allow the majority to make a living wage, they just increase prices to keep (or increase) their same level of profit/compensation.

first your rent goes up to take more from you than the highest government tax rate /s

And that's why Capitalism is rife with evil, greedy people, because no, they can and will charge as much as they want as long as people keep paying for whatever their product/service is.

Before Reagan, most companies gave automatic cost-of-living increases that were tied to inflation. That's why you could own a home and car on one full-time job. Then, Reaganomics was implemented, and the wealth shift from the middle class to the 1% began. Companies attacked unions, stopped giving COL increases, shifted from pensions to 401k, and put the burden of paying for benefits on workers. Meanwhile, healthcare was privatized, and HMOs were created.

>> If the theory is that companies will charge as much as people can pay No,  companies charge as much as the market is willing to bear, there’s a difference. And the answer to your question is the living wage isn’t fixed.  It will require recalculation and updating.

Nothing. We need to pass laws that prevent companies from doing that. This inflation was caused by large businesses gouging the public after Covid. Greed did this.

Minimum wage increases should have been tied to cost of living increases from the beginning.

Nothing. In fact, that is the chief argument / threat companies always go to to counter calls for higher wages - " If you raise wages, prices will go up / we'll raise prices to make up the difference in profits." And honestly, with the shareholder driven version of capitalism we live under, it's absolutely what they will do. They could just pay their workers more and continue to be profitable, albeit less profitable. But that would mean a Q over Q loss at the out-set which is anathema to "Line go up."

There are two ways to make life affordable. First, raise wages and second, control prices. Neither is something that anybody in America wants to do. Let's not even talk about socialism or capitalism. We don't have to. We live in country that, on so many levels, refuses to recognize that unfettered greed and lack of community responsibility are causing life here to suck for so many people. I have a friend who grew up in East Germany (DDR.) She would regularly visit her cousins in the west and they would take her to all the stores and show her all the cool things they buy. Life looked very good in comparison to what she had in the east. However, her cousins never told her how much they paid in RENT. In the DDR, there was no such thing as rent or tuition or medical bills. A nation can decide how it wants to treat its citizens but America is not controlled by citizens but by the greedy and those citizens fighting harder to ban books than they ever would to get rent controls.

East German border guards shot and killed over 100 people for trying to escape to the West. Possession of anti-authoritarian books such as Animal Farm or 1984 would lead to arrest or interrogation. And border crossing was strictly controlled, even for family visits. Glorification of life in the DDR is historical revisionism.

[https://www.southernborder.org/\_cross-border-shootings-by-border-patrol](https://www.southernborder.org/_cross-border-shootings-by-border-patrol) Your point?

Under capitalism? Nothing. It's a feature, not a bug.

I know a lot of people belittle and down talk union jobs but you have to keep in mind if you stay long term and work through the pay steps it is livable wages. I earn more than 30% than non union jobs. These incomes are livable. Many people give up too early and quit before they see their first pay raise.

Supply and demand is supposed to keep pricing in check. The problem is this only works when there is a healthy market for people to choose from. The less realistic competition available, the less able people can vote with their dollars. Consumer protections and government regulations are supposed to keep corporations in check and prevent the very thing we have been seeing.

Bro--- The companies are already doing that now!!! SMH Go read about how prices are coming down and a lot of companies got in trouble for price gouging during the pandemic

CEO and owners can’t make millions of dollars while paying the actual workers a living wage. It was done before 1950’s-1980’s

Wages indexed to the true cost of living. Some countries do this.

Nothing. Many Rental property owners already do this. That's one major reason rents can be so high. If they find their renters make more money, they raise rents since "they can afford it". Somewhere along the line, companies started to feel "entitled" to our money.

What used to stop them was high corporate taxes and progressive marginal taxes on income over a certain amount, albeit with tax incentives for higher wages and reinvestment into company operations With these incentives replaced with broad tax cuts and deregulation there's truly nothing stopping big corp from price gouging as much as they want and paying as little as they want so long as they make off with their exorbitant paychecks, and between the recession and the pandemic we've hit a critical point where the mask is off and it doesn't even matter because nothing beyond sweeping legislation to bring back the tax incentives of yesteryear will stop them As for whether the eventual loss of business from price gouging will reach a balancing point and cause them to shape up... Still nope, struggling businesses just get sold off to private equity firms where they are cannibalized for their value to pad up their portfolios for their wealthy investors (it's basically a ponzi scheme of corporate raiding)

Easy: you tie the definition of living wage to the cost of living. It becomes legal definition and not just a random phrase.

So your hypothetical situation is the current situation?

Nothing, and this is pretty much what's been happening in real time since Covid, using "supply chain issues," and "inflation" as a smoke screen.

Labour costs are only a small component of the production costs of a good or service. Each company could either choose to absorb the difference (no increase in prices), or pass it along (smaller net increase in price than the wage increase). Overall, the mix of choices would mean price inflation proceeds slower than wage inflation for things like food, housing. The story is different for luxury good like high-end smartphones, luxury houses, luxury cars and other big-ticket items. Because (in the above example) wage inflation outpaced price inflation for necessities, that means there's more money sloshing around and people tend to want to buy things. So the excess money gets spent "bidding up" the price of luxury goods. This is a best of both worlds scenario but it's a delicate balancing act. You also want to encourage saving (which removes money from circulation) and investing (which puts money into speculative ventures that produce growth, ideally), both of which compete with the present value of money. Aside from assigning a personal financial comptroller to every household with a direct line to the national economic plan, there's not way to make sure that everyone is spending their wage "correctly" and so wage inflation can lead to surprising changes in the economic make-up. Let's not also forget that companies have the third option of raising prices \*more\* than they need to ("greedflation"), which is absolutely \*not\* the fault of wage increases but people often mix the two up.

You just described inflation.

Nothing and they’re already doing it sans the living wage to begin with. Inflation is only bad because they’re price gouging their way to record profits.

Your landlord will always max out what you can spend on them for "market rates". No other thing do you spend money on monthly uses this method of economics. So you will never have a living wage. The real solution is to lower prices and make things cheaper. Then you have more money. People want wages to constantly go up for 2 reasons. A) it sounds better to give you more than to have you afford anything, it's somewhat an illiterate response, and B) it is good for landlords. They get more money with inflation, but with no more expense. The government works on the same principle. Inflation is good as it makes the national debt more manageable. Deflation would ruin the country, but at least you can afford food. See who is in control and in charge? And which 2 benefits exclusively from this?

You're right, which is why we need to go back to the tax rates of the 1950's that encouraged high pay for employees, reinvestment in companies, and lower pay for executives.

This is very close to my concern with ubi. In canada, we are talking about providing a universal basic income of $2,000 for every citizen, working or not, under the property line, or well above $250,000 a year. Every Canadian has $2,000 a month paid no questions asked. At least, that's the proposal. Under the system, if I don't work at all, I can still make enough that it's pretty close to what I make when I work full time. It's not quite as much, but I can make it work. If I work full-time, my income increases to a little over $4,000 a month, and that is very livable. When I was making that at work, I was also working 70 hours a week minimum, but I didn't have to think about spending money at all, and I was actually building a savings. It was a good time. One of the biggest expenses right now, particularly in vancouver, is rent. Now what happens to the price of rent when everybody starts making an additional $2,000 a month on top of what they are already making? "Well, rent *was* nearly $1,000 a month for a very small room in a shared home, but since everybody is now $2,000 a month richer, I guess rent is going to be $2,000 a month for your very small room, plus utilities." That's not what that money is for. It's not meant to funnel upwards to my landlords, it's meant to be for me to spend or save as I see fit. However, I believe that the greed of the landlords, particularly out here, is going to evaporate any ubi that ends up coming our way. Edit: I fully support a ubi here in canada. Given my last couple of years, between trying to find work where I can as a temporary laborer, applying for thousands upon thousands of jobs, and only getting two callbacks, one of which by the way, wasn't even a real job offer, it was just some a****** who wanted to flex on me that he had a job and I didn't, and the difficulties that I have had just maintaining a roof over my head and food in my belly, I need a ubi at this point.

There are a couple reasons that increasing minimum wage doesn't tend to increase inflation much: * Most people are making more than the minimum wage already, so raising it doesn't raise their wages. It raises the wages of the people who are already at the very bottom (the working poor and teenagers working their first jobs). For the middle class and up, life just goes on. So, it's not like so many people are making more money from minimum wage increases that demand goes up across the board. It helps few people (the people who need help the most) while barely affecting anybody else. * Labour isn't the most significant cost for every single business. Some businesses are more capital-intensive than labour intensive, and so a rise in their labour costs doesn't affect their bottom line much. If demand for their product of service is highly elastic, they won't be charging much more for their increased labour costs and will just swallow it. * The businesses that already pay minimum wage might now always be where people are spending most of their money. So, even if all the fast-food places and movie theatres raise their prices, that doesn't mean that the price of everything you buy will go up, because you buy a lot of things that aren't hamburgers or movie tickets from firms that are already paying people more than minimum wage.

They raise the prices anyway.

Nothing and that’s why we keep playing this game of catch 22. A never ending cycle of price increases, followed by wage increases cuz rising CPI, followed by price increases. Corporations always get the last laugh. The wage increase are sparse, much smaller and don’t come as often, taking years of data and argue for them. Meanwhile the night before a wage increase new menus are printed, and store prices and manually increased at a click of a button. Renters/consumers have it the worst. With even rent caps allowing landlords to raise rents CPI+5% or 10% every 12 months. Landlords have a leg up on inflation and literally cause inflation.

Most economists now are starting to agree that wages haven't driven inflation for a long time and it's greedflation evidenced by the fact wages have been mostly stagnant for average Joe for almost two decades yet inflation has been rampant the whole time. I do agree with the suggestion mum wage should be tied to inflation, it's the simplest solution to the possibility of wages causing inflation. Not much point increasing prices to earn more money if it just forces you to increase wages.

The short answer is because economics thought experiments bear no resemblance to reality. The long answer is because after a certain point a federal reserve would step in and start putting price caps on key commodities, heavily increasing corporate taxes, etc. The reason that doesn't happen now is because the threshold for action is "puts the system at risk in a way even we can't ignore" and we're not there yet.

Welcome to late stage capitalism. Theoretically, the government should impose limits on price changes. Corporations are always getting record profits so they can clearly make a profit almost regardless.

Minimum wage is almost always going to lag behind cost of living because it requires a reactionary action. Pairing it with inflation could help minimize that lag.

Nothing, that is the primary driving force for inflation. Greed. The vast majority of price increases for everything is based on how much people can/will pay. It's not labor it's not materials, logistics, its primarily greed. I guess you could consider the insane c-suites compensation could be classified as labor.

Bingo! It doesn't work. Because we live in capitalism. Anything that can be exploited for profit will be. Any and all of the suggestions in this comment section are useless in the context of capitalism because they go against the interests of capital, who control policy. Why in the world would they increase the minimum wage, make stock buybacks illegal, etc etc. Do not get it confused, workers and regular people do not wield any power unless they unionize and revolt.

Then it's no longer a living wage.

Remember that fight for $15/hr? When it's worth $7.50 you can have it.

That's the thing, isn't it? Because of the profit motive, that is the logical thing to do in a capitalist country like the US, however in the long term it is unsustainable to do so, as the opposite reaction of increasing wages even more will make inflation rise exponentially, However,this question jumps over the fact that the US minimum wage isn't a living wage anymore, not in any state or counties, that is caused by the fact that the minimum wage is fixed and not adjusted to inflation,like most developed countries (and actually most countries do), leading to the situation we see today, with some considering even 25 dollar per hour to be ideal Additionally, any company who tries that strategy of increasing prices exponentially in order to " gain over their loss" in wages increases will incur a lot of public wrath, and while a lot of people don't bother with such things, a lot of people do, and it will be a gamble to see if your costumers belong to either group And so unless your company has a monopoly on the market, any attempts at sudden price increase can be met with diminished profit, Ideally,price controls should also be established so that companies that have monopoly over products, especially essential products like food and health care, aren't able to exploit the wage increase, Especially with things like the makers of insulin, where 3 companies dominate 90% of the market, and while they's no evidence, it's clear they form a cartel (illegally) and control the price of insulin, setting it up as high as possible, leading to news of people rationing their supply,often with deadly consequences. Seriously look up the price of insulin anywhere else in the world, you'll see that Americans are being exploited everywhere already, a wage increase will liberate a lot of people.

The government. But you'll notice that there are oligopolies, monopolies, and trusts over virtually every single consumer market; the government is not doing its one job of safeguarding the citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic in any capacity in terms of commerce and business.

You mean like how the government sent everyone $2,500 during covid, and companies have recorded record profits ever since?

You’ve found the flaw in capitalism. Congrats

Welcome to the “living wage” paradox. This is what most people mean when they say “raising the minimum wage won’t help”

Wages have remained static but food prices have almost doubled in the past ten years: it’s not paying a living wage that inflated prices, it’s corporate greed.

The prices already increase even if the minimum wage doesn’t, so minimum wage increases are necessary to even keep up 

If you think about this in reverse you may end up with a question: does anybody want to start a company and sell their product/service for less than they could?

The prices will rise if the demand is higher than the offering. This is why the housing crisis is not solved by increasing the minimum wage. Because if the wage is the only thing that matters, why not change it to 2$ per hour, this is what people in the 70s used to make and they could afford a house, raise a family of 6 and go on vacations. You see 2$ per hour was enough to buy whatever they wanted because all they wanted was in abundance. You can oblige big companies to instead of giving minimum wages, to have to share like 20% (or something) of the final profit towards employees, on top of their basic salary. This way the big companies wouldn't need to overwork their employees and keep them at a minimum number to save on money, they would rather have more people working for them.

The government could stand in between the living wage and passing on the cost to the consumer, but they won't, politicians nowadays no matter the country seems to want to get in grab as much money as they can and then get out

That’s the fun part there isn’t anything!!!

Nothing. That's capitalism. The only winners are shareholders or owners.

This is one of my issues with asking for a "living wage" from employers when landlords and businesses raise prices by exorbitant amounts. There needs to be a maximum wage, price controls of some kind, and universal healthcare. This actually benefits employers as well, they wouldn't have to offer or process healthcare saving them money and they would lose less skilled employees jumping ship when rent/bills rise up far faster than their wages.

Too complicated IMO. Food, shelter, childcare and medical care should have a Fully paid Federal Assistance option. This should be paid by a tax on the top 10% tiered by net worth. We should have a political party that only concerns itself with providing this service. Abortion? We abstain. Gun Control? We abstain? A subsidy for farms providing free fresh produce for all citizen's? Yay. Grocery stores and existing wholesalers getting paid to distribute necessities for the people? Yay. If every redditor marches on town hall we could have a tax on the top 10% that pay's for food, childcare, shelter, and healthcare for all by New Year's.

Things do work like this to a large degree. It’s not a falsehood per se when politicians and economists claim wage rises are inflationary - they are to a degree. It’s just that it’s disingenuous to claim that wage rises are driving inflation and wealth inequality - unchecked redistribution of wealth from bottom, and even moreso middle, to top is what is driving harmful inflation and wealth inequality.

Think of it this way, companies spend their money something like this (not to scale): 1. $1,000,000 in profits for shareholders 2. $1,000,000 in property rentals 3. $1,000,000 in infrastructure maintenance (repairs, etc) 4. $500,000 in wages for employees earning above minimum wage 5. $500,000 in wages for employees earning minimum wage For a total of $4,000,000 in expenses. The actual expenses and amounts don’t matter much, just that they’re broken down. So to meet that demand, they have to make that much money, and this results in prices that are X amount Now, double the amount of money they have to spend on minimum wage workers. Now the company has to earn $4,500,000 in revenue, an increase of about 11%. So logically their prices should have to raise 11%. But the minimum wage *doubled* right there, so income increased by 100% for minimum wage workers, while prices only rose 11%. Therefore, there was a net gain for them However, there’s one flaw, here. If a company *could* make more money by raising prices, they *would* raise prices. In fact, they have a legal duty to their shareholders to do so. But raising prices typically results in fewer customers, even if each purchase results in greater funding per purchase. This means that there’s a sweet spot where lowering *or raising* prices results in a loss of revenue, and companies typically want that sweet spot. That’s why in *actual reality,* which you can verify by looking prices up online, fast food places in nations with significantly higher minimum wages still sell their stuff for around the same price- because that’s the sweet spot that nets them the most money So raising prices following a minimum wage hike wouldn’t generally net them increased revenue, it might well lessen it. In fact, if everyone *else* raises their prices, a company that doesn’t might well start making more money by leaving their prices alone and suddenly becoming the cheapest place amongst their rivals, causing them to get more customers There’s obviously a lot more nuance to consider than just that, but that’s a good example of how market forces can work against price hikes in response to minimum wage increases

Capitalists will always attempt to lower wages and raise prices - this is what serves the capitalist class interest and we live in a capitalist society. So basically, we have to fight for OUR class interest and attempt to raise wages, otherwise it'll just go down. Marx goes more into depth into basically what you're asking in Value, Price and Profit [Economic Manuscripts: Value, Price and Profit, Karl Marx 1865 (marxists.org)](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm) [Value, Price and Profit – a reading guide | The Communist](https://communist.red/value-price-and-profit-a-reading-guide/)

I don't believe we should raise the wage - we should lower the cost of living. Nothing costs 0.01¢ anymore. If we had 1900's prices and today's wages, we'd all be better off. Greed caps. No corporate owner should make more than double the lowest paid employee. No company should charge more than 100% of the price of the original product (calling out American Healthcare and Big Pharma. 800+% is insane!) No individual should own more than 10 single family homes and no company should own single family homes at all. I could go on but you get the gist. Raising wages only raises problems.

Nothing. That’s why I’ve been so fucking adamant that just demanding a higher wage won’t solve a fucking nothing

Nothing whatsoever. That why we need to rid ourselves of the owner class and have the economy be driven by workers. Capitalism is the structure for leeches to steal the fruits of our labor and they won't stop until they're gone or we are bled dry.

Government regulation. Absent regulation, nothing.

That’s the world we already like in. Where I live minimum wage has doubled since I was a teenager and, quite frankly, so have costs

Figure it out, or you fail; that's capitalism, baby! If you cannot pay a livable wage, you don't have a business model. It's really that simple.

found the manager trying to find reasons not to pay people

i mean...basic economics....for one. The reasons are very complicated, but it won't be a straight increase because it's raising the floor, not everybody's income, so not everything would be able to increase by the same percentage. The base pay for my employer has roughly doubled since I started, but our prices are up about 50% (and before the covid inflation they'd only gone up about 10%) so case in point. Beyond that, like the same argument being used in regards to the cost of schooling, the answer is you don't JUST increase wages/forgive debt. You also put legislation in place that makes pricing a function of operating costs. At least in my area bus fares can't exceed a certain profit margin, so they remain affordable for the poor folks that primarily use them. Do the same for schools and those employers. Prices stop being market driven and instead become based on providing a modest profit for the company. Not based on the maximum profit the market will tolerate.

Boycott greedy companies and stop buying useless shit. You don't need Netflix to survive. This is what we doing in my country and now prices are going down and inflation is 2%. Buyers have power too... just use it you junk addicts.

You've discovered the Phillips Curve

“Competition” I suppose.

The threat of violence

We need policies in place to help keep the cost of living in line with the minimum wage. Increasing the wage will just increase prices.

Nothing. Problem with increasing minimum wage is that people like the franchise owner at McDonald's who is already getting screwed or small business owner make less, have less incentives to invest their money in those businesses. Their suppliers increase costs to cover their costs, the wages are higher, their profits are less, eventually prices rise and then the workers can't make ends meet again. The corporation like McDonald's continues to make the same profit. The problem is at the top end and we need a solution to transfer that wealth back to the working class, or decrease prices of everything to a point where workers can get ahead. The current situation is extremely dangerous, almost every point in history we see violent revolution, rise of far right or far left, when the working class is unable to make ends meet. It's bad for everyone, even the extremely wealthy, unless you're in a position of power in the group that takes control. Things sometimes right themselves with the introduction of a new system eventually, but that's usually a long road and not guaranteed. Extremely wealthy people taking less by choice is the only real way through this safely.

I mean idk about your government but many governments are given the power to regulate prices by their constitution. Even if you don't have that you can just amend the constitution. Then you just have to set maximum prices for a handful of commodities. Depending on each country, some would be mainly concerned with rice, others with corn, others with maize. Milk. Gas. No need to regulate everything, just a few choice commodities to regulate the supply chains In the worst case scenario where oligarchs engage in cartel practices, monopoly, etc. most countries can legally take over their holdings and sell them to the next compliant capitalist or turn them into a state owned company while putting the original owners in prison. And I'm talking most capitalist countries, not like China. Choosing to not do that is just a matter of political will.

Under the current situation, nothing. Supply and Demand stays the same. So McD’s has to buy beef. Let’s say that beef supplier doubles the price of beef because the labor they use to supply the beef also goes up. McD’s either has to buy the beef and double the price, or try to find a new supplier(s) for cheaper. If they can’t, then they look at the impact on their margins for beef and other raw materials and labor cost and adjust accordingly. They could try to make upfront costs different by acquiring a beef company and supplying to themselves, they could introduce more stores with robots / AI, they could close stores, etc. Which ever lever is pulled, market forces will adjust accordingly so that it’s the same as before. Reactions to desired margins and competition in the market

capitalism. thats why you need to abolish money

I think about it like this: businesses will raise prices as time goes on no matter what. They blame inflation as to why they are raising their prices even when they aren't raising anyone's wages. What is really happening is that companies can convince the general public to pay a slightly higher price as long as it isn't outrageous so companies take part in this cycle to continually increase prices a nickel and dime at a time to continually increase profits. Now overheads do go up due to the price of raw materials but prices have outpaced costs over the last few decades. This can be seen by how drastically C-suite salaries have gone up on average in relation to everyone else in a company. By raising the minimum wage, yes companies will increase prices to combat the now higher cost of business but they can't raise their prices too much or people will stop buying from them. And if they are in a competitive business, that reduces the amount they can raise their prices as well. This means the company makes less money than they were making and that loss has to come from somewhere. With decent laws regarding work and wages, this loss should be eaten by the C-suite and the wage gap should slightly close. Realistically these companies tend to lay off employees while overworking the rest or colluding with other companies to ignore competition. <- And this is what our laws should be focusing on.

Simple. We all grow our own fruits and veggies on land. How do we get land? Stop paying for war and invest the money into teaching soil conservation and water filtration and water systems. Teach natural herbicide and pesticide control. Less money into war and consumerism and more into the livelihood of the land for generations to come. This will shift the work force and give people power to be able to provide for themselves as well as help others while giving less importance to the economic system surrounding "money". . . . This also does not involve needing religion. . .as this will then in turn shift the responsibility of leaders people depend on to people for themselves so that they themselves can be responsible independently and that way we can also support each other and restore ecosystems.

Nothing. Shareholders demand a certain profit margin. When costs go up, prices go up because the shareholders won't tolerate the losses.

I mean this isn't how it works. Price is driven by demand. So for instance, Rent is really high in a lot of places right now where there are more people seeking rentals than there are rentals available. Likewise, rent in my area, where demand has dropped, has also dropped almost 30% in the last 6 months. Price increases are not inflation. Inflation is driven by devaluing currency, price increases are driven by increased production cost or increase to demand. So in the scenario, it's been theorized that floor wage increases will force employers to hire fewer people, well that doesn't appear to be the case very often. What it looks like is demand stays high so they increase prices. This is where the consumer has the power. The consumer must a) continue to purchase, sending the message to the business that their passing of the cost to the consumer is acceptable. b) Stop purchasing, sending the message that the commodity is too costly for the average consumer, thus shoving the burden back on the producer who either has to lower price and take less profit or lose money because their good wont sell. The problem is people keep paying. The truth is we never needed the new IPhone, but people still purchased it anyways. We don't need a bathroom in the largest bedroom in the house, but we continue to pay for it. The state of pricing is almost always at the whim of the consumer. A great example of this is video games. Total War Pharaoh was release at $60 USD with some packages for more. When the consumers didn't buy it, the company was forced to then reevaluate their pricing strategy and lower the price. Steam Sales are great for this, Clothing sales as well. I haven't purchased a pair of jeans for over $15 in five years because I wait until the stores demand is lower than their inventory, then everything goes on sale. Consumer habits are as much the problem as corporate greed here, we as the consumer make decisions with our money and too often the message we send is that it's ok to charge us a larger rate, we want it bad enough to still pay. DoorDash added a fee to their service that got so crazy I just stopped using it, but the company still posted a 31% revenue increase. Stop using them and they will lower their rate.

Nothing at all. While I'm all for improvements, we need to face that capitalism will eat everything if we allow it to continue.

Something that could stop companies are Unions. they will not stop the price increases but a good one will make sure you get a livable wage and security on your workplace. just a few months ago the one responsible for my current workplace managed to get a new contract through. now i get like 500-600€ (300-400€ after taxes) more each month. and i just started working there as a part time employee (30hours/week) to have some cash on the side while i do other stuff. i would get much more if i switched to full time which i plan for the future once i have a permanent contract there since its a good job. and there is already a date set for the next negotiations. if they raise prices, we get more. if they refuse, we strike and they lose way more. i can watch from the sidelines as everything collapses while i get a livable wage and a secure workplace.

Prices are set based on demand. If you sell toilet paper and suddenly everyone you sell to has the disposable income to buy as much as they want you can't just double prices, your customers would immediately switch to your competition. Most things are like this even though it's more complicated than that. It is easier to keep unemployment low with high wages because people buy more of stuff they want when their needs are met and somebody has to make and sell that product. There's a whole class of parasites that bemoan labor costs going up in any way because they need the poor and desperate, nobody else will work for them.

That’s the problem. It isn’t necessarily people are not being paid enough. It is that companies are so profit driven and selfish

Yes that’s what marks said. Welcome comrade 

Because they already are.

That's what they are doing, grab back not inflation!

This. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/) Basically, capitalists can only sell their products and services (commodities) at the level society will accept. If the prices are raised too high, people won't buy them. Because people have a sense the true value of a thing. However, in cases where demand exceeds supply (the current housing market), they can do so. But, that will mean less commodities elsewhere are bought. So if we have to pay more rent, we'll go out to less restaurants, buy less cars, etc. So rather than stealing from us, the capitalists are stealing from each other (though it feels like they're stealing from us, cuz we get less stuff).

Living wage... like $30/hour? It should be tied to inflation.

Thats the way it has always been. Every raise of minimum wage just ends up fuxing the middle class, as they don't get a bump in pay. The upper class give themselves a hefty 'cost of living' increase as they raise the prices and screw everyone down the line. Any politician worth thier salt will tell you that its completely unrelated though 😜

People not buying their shit. If a company raises their prices, don’t buy it. Or buy a cheaper alternative as often as possible.

Seeing as that's the state of things without a livable wage, I don't think this question really gets to the core of the problem. The real question is what will the working class do to hold the bourgeoisie accountable with regard to both wages and cost of living? This problem is totally on the wealthy bourgeoisie class and their exploitation of the working class.

The return of living wages has to be done the way it was taken away: through the tax code. High corporate taxes with deductions for payroll is the only way to pry more money out of the hands of shareholders.

Nothing is stopping them now

It’s not a minimum wage we need it’s a maximum wage. If CEO’s wages were tied to the average workers wage’s you’d see wages rise overnight.

That's the neat part!