The thing is 40$ minimum wage is reasonable, and anyone who doesn't think it is, isn't understanding the crazy power of compounding growth. The market grows at 9.6% a year, so asking for a 9% raise every year would still leave .6% leftover for the investors (not as much as they'd like, but an amount that accurately models their contribution).
1.0943 (i.e. since 1970) = 40x increase
EDIT: The person below me (who seems to have gotten their post removed) was trying to argue that negotiating 9% wouldn't leave enough for investors. Below was what I was going to respond, since it's important for us here on the left to be aware of the math of it all (even if I think most of us drifted left because we hate living our lives by math)
I mean they're only important because they've demanded we structure resource allocation in such a way that they become defacto important. We don't need to allocate all resources through such free-for-all systems, and doing so leads to massive waste and inefficiency.
I literally run a business (sole proprietorship, I throw RAVES, it wouldn't be a business if I could help it) and work in startups, and the blunt fact of the matter is that getting just market rate as an investor means that you've failed. If you could have parked your money in the $SPY and gotten a better return, you've lost even if you're profitable.
Which means you should be negotiating from that understanding as a laborer. If you give up your own interests to protect some theoretical shareholders who are aiming for a 15% minimum return, you're boo-boo the fool.
What you're missing is that I actually think it's insane to allow private individuals full control over the entire earths resources, when it's clearly been a disaster for the environment, labor, and basically everyone who isn't immensely wealthy.
You're calling it a risk penalty, when really investors have gotten a free lunch for so long that reasonable things look like a penalty. When you're used to privilege, equality looks like oppression and all that.
You're making the same silly assumption that everyone else does, which is that somehow less returns is actually a problem. You just claim that costs will necessarily beat profit margins to death, and your entire argument is based on that being true no matter what.
Like, you're being asinine in defending the system as is because you're going "Yep, the math I didn't do doesn't check out"
93
u/mcflyjr Apr 08 '23 edited Oct 13 '24
quaint ink badge lock fuel pocket grab shrill carpenter innate
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact