I guess I'm confused by what your cure for the whole is. IMHO, you have the approach to supply, demand, and zero sum gains backwards.
The one constant in the modern economy is change, so any large support we can give to enable employees to have flexibility in their skills and the ability to adapt to new industries is a massive positive.
I guess I'm confused by what your cure for the whole is. IMHO, you have the approach to supply, demand, and zero sum gains backwards.
The one constant in the modern economy is change, so any large support we can give to enable employees to have flexibility in their skills and the ability to adapt to new industries is a massive positive.
i added this below to the post you quoted, just as you posted your reply.
------------------------------------------------
mandates in how wealth is "distributed" in the first place, (not "redistributed" after the fact), is how we benefit the whole.
he who decides how the wealth of a business is distributed in the first place, will always, (almost always), distribute as much to themselves as they can get away with, regardless of their percentage of contribution to the effort.
and each on down the line will also take all they can, irrespective of contribution.
only 3rd party intervention,(say govt or strong union), can force those grabbing at the cash first as it makes it's way down the line, to reserve a "fair share" be left for those who's hands it didn't flow through first.
increased minimum wage is the logical way to reserve a fair share and living wage for those left with what those on top of them didn't grab first.
----------------------------------------------
everyone fixates on "redistribution of wealth", as the moneyed interest control the debate as they control the media and the parties.
the original "distribution" is rarely addressed, other than the line that those distributing the lion's share to themselves deserve it.
absent a gun to their head, those controlling the original distribution will never share one cent more than they have to.
and they will argue to the death that they deserve all they grab for themselves.
i won't debate how much they do deserve, as no way to actually quantify that for me or them.
i'll just acknowledge that every hand it passes through first will take all they can from the pile, regardless of how much of it they actually deserve.
when there literally is no way to actually quantify each member of the team's actual percentage contribution to the effort, and then mandate that the spoils be distributed accordingly, that leaves only distribution based on the power to control the distribution itself, rather than a perfect world scenario where one's exact percentage of contribution to the overall effort could be quantified, and the spoils distributed proportionally to said contribution.
due to the absence of a way to quantify the contribution of each team player, then mandate distribution based in said contribution, another means of protecting those who's hands the spoils flow through last becomes necessitated.
minimum wage is the best means of doing so that i can think of, and benefits the economy as a whole, including those at the top, in the process.
is minimum wage unfair to those who otherwise would have grabbed some of that extra income for themselves as it passed through their hands first?
that's debatable but not definable, and every case is it's own.
but is the alternative of distribution by pecking order of who grabs first, fair?
again, debatable, but not definable. and also varies with every case.
but life in the US requires a base income, and the pecking order grabbing as much as you can as it comes down the line distribution method, can't protect that base income need.
a livable minimum wage can.