• gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    This has been studied over and over and always with the same results. The economy isn’t hampered, jobs aren’t replaced by machines and overseas workers, the cost of goods doesn’t go up, and factories don’t close. The main impact is that quality of life increases, health spending increases (now that people can afford to take their kids to the doctor), and corporate profits decrease very slightly.

    Especially in this economy of runaway corporate greed, we need a meaningful increase in wages

    • Kichae
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      ·
      2 months ago

      corporate profits decrease very slightly

      This is the thing that people will reflexively point to, but this:

      quality of life increases

      This is the real issue. If quality of life increases, workers are less desperate, and are less willing to put up with their employers BS. Moreover, if other jobs are also paying a living wage, it’s much easier to quit.

      We have seen, over and over, that businesses are willing to spend money to exert control over workers. They’ll do it even if it means a decline in profits, or even in revenue. Because at the end of the day, if you have your needs met, any money left over is just power, and power is meant to be used to control others.

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Especially in this economy of runaway corporate greed, we need a meaningful increase in wages revolution to eliminate those corporations and the systemic rewarding of greed.

      The fact that they could increase wages and still make money while improving society but don’t, is why they don’t deserve any more benefit of the doubt, or room to continue hoarding wealth and power as they are, because a system that craves constant growth at any cost will never stop on its own (nor provide paths for reform).

    • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh jobs are replaced by machines, it just has almost nothing to do with minimum wage. Machines cost pennies on the dollar for production value compared to humans. The human wage is pretty meaningless at that point, even forced labor is less profitable.

      • davad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think part of the issue is how business accounting practices work. When you buy a machine, you can call it a capital investment and count its value as an asset. When you hire a person and cultivate them for years, from an accounting perspective their salary is strictly a liability / expense. Even though that person is an asset in every other way, our standard accounting practices don’t reflect that.

        • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Accounting practices reflect exactly what is relevant to profits within the desired time frame. There are no laws that make employee seniority valuable within the business cycle, so it has no value to account for.

          The investment that business sees is like you spending a thousand dollars a year for a century in order to make a million dollars. Sure it’s a 10 to 1 return on investment, but you’ll be dead, so is it really worth it?

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      All of those things do happen, they just happen irregardless of minimum wage being raised. Like, the machines are coming for all jobs eventually, that’s not a reason to not raise the wage for living workers.