Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[Eddie Teach]

Thing is, they're not only competing with other people on the bottom. That apartment complex could be a golf course instead.

[CountDeMoney]

The original article is from 2014 Ffs. I just reacted to CdM's argument for a higher minimum wage. Chillax and go to sleep :p

Meh, I'm not even arguing for a higher minimum wage, even though that would help the particularly low end sectors. 
Just increasing wages along a long enough timeline would help, even if it's a barely perceptible yearly increase--somebody making the exact same salary now that they were 6 years ago is not helping the economy as the economy burns past them, it just provides Yi's whacking material.  You want to eliminate positions to save a buck, fine.  Be a dick.  But don't eliminate a position for $35,000 and then stack it on top of another position, just for the benefit of having someone perform two jobs. 
Those kinds of factors are just as impactful as increasing the minimum wage.

[LaCroix]

I wonder how the graphs would look if the groups that seem to wallow their whole lives in poverty stricken cesspools were omitted (white trash, etc.)

Why would you omit them?

to see how the average incomes look after you remove maybe 20% of the bottom 50%. certain groups seem like they're going to remain in abject poverty and have no interest rising above it or moving. at least the ghettos are a few blocks from wealth.

[Berkut]

The original article is from 2014 Ffs. I just reacted to CdM's argument for a higher minimum wage. Chillax and go to sleep :p

But your reaction isn't even a reaction to what he is saying. He didn't say raise their wages so they can afford a nicer apartment, or more importantly, so they can get out of the bottom 50%.

[garbon]

The original article is from 2014 Ffs. I just reacted to CdM's argument for a higher minimum wage. Chillax and go to sleep :p

But your reaction isn't even a reaction to what he is saying. He didn't say raise their wages so they can afford a nicer apartment, or more importantly, so they can get out of the bottom 50%.

True he shouldn't have said that first part.

I do think there is an issue with the simple statement of just raise their wages though, which is what Tamas has noted. Unless something is put in places to stop businesses/landlords, etc. from just raising prices now that more individuals have more money, you'll end up back in the same place. What we need is someway to have the ratio change in favour of employees.

[Eddie Teach]

If wages are raised, the ratio of money owned by employees (as opposed to stock owners) does go up.

[garbon]

If wages are raised, the ratio of money owned by employees (as opposed to stock owners) does go up.

Not if prices go up at a similar pace.

[Eddie Teach]

If wages are raised, the ratio of money owned by employees (as opposed to stock owners) does go up.

Not if prices go up at a similar pace.

Prices are tied to inflation, which will go up at a slower rate. Not all the money in the economy is invested in wages.

[garbon]

If wages are raised, the ratio of money owned by employees (as opposed to stock owners) does go up.

Not if prices go up at a similar pace.

Prices are tied to inflation, which will go up at a slower rate. Not all the money in the economy is invested in wages.

I think even just a look at all the recent drug hiking scandals can demonstrate that a company can choose to increase prices.

[Eddie Teach]

Sure, companies can choose to raise prices anytime they want. Normally people will just buy from their competitors. In the case of drug companies with patents, people will just go without. But raising wages to a set amount or even raising wages across the board(which isn't what CDM was suggesting) by x% is not going to increase demand by x%.

[garbon]

Sure, companies can choose to raise prices anytime they want. Normally people will just buy from their competitors. In the case of drug companies with patents, people will just go without. But raising wages to a set amount or even raising wages across the board(which isn't what CDM was suggesting) by x% is not going to increase demand by x%.

I'm assuming demand for basic life goods (like Tamas raised regarding housing) will still have similar levels of demand to which they have now.

[Eddie Teach]

So if supply and demand are both static, there is no reason for prices to go up.

[garbon]

So if supply and demand are both static, there is no reason for prices to go up.

A desire for more profit? After all company profit margins will be going down if their employee costs increase.

[Eddie Teach]

Desire for profit is also a near-constant. 

Even if one stipulates that the company will raise prices to keep the same profit(which they'd have already done if the market would let them), labor costs are less than 100% of the company's expenditures. So the percentage they increase the price of their products is less than the percentage they increased the wages.

[Berkut]

While of course it is important to understand the knock on effects, the basic argument that we should continue to pay poor people a continually declining share of the wealth because it just won't do them any good to let them have a greater share (or maybe we aren't exactly sure how much them having more wealth might help them in the particulars) is fucking stupid.

And that is what the Tamas/garbon argument seems to be suggesting.

The issue here is not the problem of poor people not having enough supply of basic services such that they cannot afford them. The issue under discussion is that poor people have less then half the share of the actual wealth in this country that they had 20 years ago. And all that wealth that they lost, went into the hands of the very wealthy.

No matter how much the median rent of a two bedroom apartment in ghettoville is running, this is a problem.