Support NeoGAF

[Toons]

And really nobody pays that, not today. Regulation didn't determine that, the market did. And who stays at an entry job for their entire career? Seems somewhat ludicrous to assume one would, and if they did - definitely not the fault of said employer.

"Entry job" doesn't have to mean "you're a wage slave who might as well not be working at all" entry jobs like that provide you no real means to move upward because you can't pay to get educated and you can't afford to move. You're giving your time as a currency and getting nothing back.

If the regulations aren't determining what the employers can pay; then they arent fulfilling their entire reason for existing as regulations. This is that wierd quagmire we get when there's laws that basically are so ineffective that the market has to correct in itd stead. It shouldn't be a thing.

Regulation will never help anything. Forced wealthy politicians forcing their ideals on business (many of which small) is how you have jobs cut and business closed.

Jobs that aren't paying decently need to be cut. Businesses that cant pay employers worth a damn don't need to be continuing operations until they can. If you give people a reason to work, they will come and work. Business that abuses minimum wage, perhaps in markers either little opportunity for good jobs, are just as bad as the politicians. Now, all things in balance, im not saying that every job needs to be paying $25 and hour. But there is quite literally no purpose for the minimum wage at its current state to exist as it is. It doesn't serve its purpose as a minimum wage or as a regulation factor for business.

Many people here have never run or managed a business at any level, and it shows.

Theres plenty of small business that manage to support their employees within reason. Those arent the ones we are talking about here.

 

[Toons]

In the 2010s, all the inflation was in asset bubbles like the stock market.

Prices didn't go down after 2020 because the government flooded the country with an unheard amount of money. That money was then spent. That is what triggered the inflation. Now, you could argue that this stuff was necessary, maybe I would agree with the first and even second round of gibs, but the third was just vulgar and that's when the problems really started. Biden passed his ridiculous gibs package even as the economy was recovering quickly from the plandemic.

Ridiculous usage of "pandemic" aside, the stimmies were indeed spent. On necessities:

Majority Who Received Stimulus Payments Spending Most of It on Household Expenses

The majority of adults who received a stimulus payment are spending it on household expenses (70.1%), and 15.7% to pay off debt; only 14.1% plan to save it.

www.census.gov

Necessities that largely don't HAVE inflate at all of the corporations providing them didn't feel the need to keep the same profit margins(and let's not forget the corporate payouts that went out all over the place too) Besides, only people who got more than 1 or 2 of the checks were people who probably needed them the most. Folks with young kids and a lot of expenses and not a lot of time. Problem is corprostions by design value assets and entities, not people.

The pandemic didn't start these problems, they were already there. It just forced the government to do what they would've had to do eventually anyways, early. Payouts for a populous that literally csnt afford necessities could be seen for a mile away, and its going to happen again once AI starts replacing jobs.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. There is too much money in the system, and it has to go somewhere. There is still too much money in the system - interest rates should probably be close to 10% by now, but for political reasons they are keeping it where it is at. In fact, it seems like the government is trying to create another stock market bubble, because that basically acts like a relief valve for inflation, with the added bonus of making the rich richer.

The only reason people buy into amy bubbles is because they aren't making that much money elsewhere and are looking for fast cash/appreciable assets. Either way the rich benefit. Stock market also blew up during the pandemic, for the exact same reasons.

 

[0neAnd0nly]

I think a point is being missed. Whether the job is entry or temp, people still need to be able to pay their bills and make a living.

Oh, and those government regulations you despise probably helped you stay alive and healthy because the market wouldn't have. Asbestos, for example. And yes, they help business, too!

Government was created to protect the people.

Asbestos harmed people.

Part time minimum+ jobs aren’t harming SHIIIII. People acting like how anything in life doesn’t have a ladder is beyond me.

I can always count in threads like this for you and Toons to react to any push back hella hard. It’s been like that for years.

It’s all political for you, cool, but in *reality* business can’t do that.

Again, I guarantee neither of you have run or managed a business of any small or medium capacity at all. Margins aren’t huge especially in the food industry, it’s really not a move that makes any sense to longevity.

Your replies are always going to be “CoRpOrAtIoNs CaN pAy It”, which is like - yeah, duh, that’s why they support crap like this (hello Panera) because it’s ends PRIVATE business while the corps flourish in their new wasteland. But let’s bookmark this and come back in a few years. We’ll discuss it further then.

Bonus Question: ever been to California before?

 

[Blade2.0]

If the business can't do that, they shouldn't exist. It's that simple. A job is only good if it can support the people doing it. The economy is better off when there is more money in more hands and not all the money in as few hands as possible. Even if you want to call these people lazy, the fact remains that the money is better off being spent in their hands than being siphoned into billionaires vaults that do nothing with it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Government was created to protect the people.

Asbestos harmed people.

Part time minimum+ jobs aren’t harming SHIIIII. People acting like how anything in life doesn’t have a ladder is beyond me.

I can always count in threads like this for you and Toons to react to any push back hella hard. It’s been like that for years.

It’s all political for you, cool, but in *reality* business can’t do that.

Again, I guarantee neither of you have run or managed a business of any small or medium capacity at all. Margins aren’t huge especially in the food industry, it’s really not a move that makes any sense to longevity.

Your replies are always going to be “CoRpOrAtIoNs CaN pAy It”, which is like - yeah, duh, that’s why they support crap like this (hello Panera) because it’s ends PRIVATE business while the corps flourish in their new wasteland. But let’s bookmark this and come back in a few years. We’ll discuss it further then.

Bonus Question: ever been to California before?

Funny thing is for all the people who are broke and getting paid bad, on one hand they hate when other people make more money zooming by them in life. But tell them they can flip burgers and make $100/hr and be like someone who can buy a nice house and a BMW and they'll be the first in line wanting a sweet paying job too just like anyone else. Anything for a buck. Like in the movie Boiler Room, only people who complain about money have no money.

Best thing to do is just do a Michel Jackson eating popcorn GIF and watch on the sidelines and be entertained when they complain. The more energy they spend doing nothing but complaining is another day lost at opportunities to improve.

It doesn't take a visionary like Steve Jobs or academic brainer like Einstein to make it through life. Not need to be a straight A valedictorian to get an avg job out in life, which in the US and Canada is around $50-60,000. A guy driving a UPS truck probably makes $100,000. People who complain make it sound like only 1% of people in the world make great money and the other 99% of people are relegated to being oppressed bums on the street with a tin can. If the accounts payable clerks at my company can make $70,000/yr doing the same PC work for a decade, anyone can score a decent job. And trust me, these people are nice and all, but no brainers.

 

[diffusionx]

Ridiculous usage of "pandemic" aside, the stimmies were indeed spent. On necessities:

Majority Who Received Stimulus Payments Spending Most of It on Household Expenses

The majority of adults who received a stimulus payment are spending it on household expenses (70.1%), and 15.7% to pay off debt; only 14.1% plan to save it.

www.census.gov

Necessities that largely don't HAVE inflate at all of the corporations providing them didn't feel the need to keep the same profit margins(and let's not forget the corporate payouts that went out all over the place too) Besides, only people who got more than 1 or 2 of the checks were people who probably needed them the most. Folks with young kids and a lot of expenses and not a lot of time. Problem is corprostions by design value assets and entities, not people.

The pandemic didn't start these problems, they were already there. It just forced the government to do what they would've had to do eventually anyways, early. Payouts for a populous that literally csnt afford necessities could be seen for a mile away, and its going to happen again once AI starts replacing jobs.

Right... and we've had 30% inflation on the necessities. Thus proving the point. The "muh profit margins" shit is a democratic party talking point to get people to not talk about the real reasons for the inflation. As I said, inflation is a monetary problem, and there is too much money in the system. And two, as I also said, the government is quite fine with massive profit margins because it is one way to act as a relief valve for the excess money (ends up in the stock price). If that money kept moving around the economy inflation would be even worse.

The government gave people all this money, are they actually better off now after having gotten that money? Like, let's be real here. I don't think so. Would giving them more money be different? Doubtful.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Right... and we've had 30% inflation on the necessities. Thus proving the point. The "muh profit margins" shit is a democratic party talking point to get people to not talk about the real reasons for the inflation. As I said, inflation is a monetary problem, and there is too much money in the system. And two, as I also said, the government is quite fine with massive profit margins because it is one way to act as a relief valve for the excess money (ends up in the stock price).

The government gave people all this money, are they actually better off now after having gotten that money? Like, let's be real here. I don't think so. Would giving them more money be different? Doubtful.

Inflation is high too because a lot of companies (like mine) ditched going after low priced unit sales (market share goal), and focused on selling less product for higher prices or simply reducing the number of Walmart/grocery store sale deals. This also increase prices because even if we leave the regular price the exact same, the avg price goes up since there's less juicy bargain deals like pre-covid. Our company changed the promotional strategy calendars for probably half our brands since covid happened. And it's lead to higher profits despite a lot of brands selling similar or worse volume sales (units/tonnage metric).

The best thing for consumers is to have companies all amped up competing. Worst thing is something like covid which gave companies knowledge how things work. And with people hoarding, it made a lots of companies act similar as many ran out of stock. So a lot of us were in the same boat doing similar adjusted strategies. And if the strategies keep doing well, no need to change them back to 2019 or earlier with red hot 99 cent deals.

So whether people had tons of extra money on them or not, it doesn't matter because consumers did it to themselves buying tons of shit at high prices. And like anything in life, when things stick around it then changes to a norm, which people just accept it and keep buying.

Youd think with higher prices the past bunch of years people would all gravitate to dirt cheap store brands. Nope. People still love their corporate higher priced nation brands at higher prices. So people kind of support it doing to themselves.

It's like gamers in an uproar at $70 US games years back. What's changed now? Nothing. Gamers now accept $70 US. When games become $80 US, it'll be the same thing. Big uproar and then $80 US wiil be a-ok as a new standard.

 

[diffusionx]

Inflation is high too because a lot of companies (like mine) ditched going after low priced unit sales (market share goal), and focused on selling less product for higher prices or simply reducing the number of Walmart/grocery store sale deals. This also increase prices because even if we leave the regular price the exact same, the avg price goes up since there's less juicy bargain deals like pre-covid. Our company changed the promotional strategy calendars for probably half our brands since covid happened. And it's lead to higher profits despite a lot of brands selling similar or worse volume sales (units/tonnage metric).

You're missing the forest for the trees. WHY is your company doing this? Because people had more money to spend. They could cut back on deals, because people had extra money. They could increase prices, people because had extra money.

Unless you want to start imposing price controls, which come with their own set of problems, and which the government sort of did with the eviction moratorium that turned into a complete mess, then this is what is going to happen.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You're missing the forest for the trees. WHY is your company doing this? Because people had more money to spend. They could cut back on deals, because people had extra money. They could increase prices, people because had extra money.

Unless you want to start imposing price controls, which come with their own set of problems, and which the government sort of did with the eviction moratorium that turned into a complete mess, then this is what is going to happen.

We increased prices or cut back on weekly promotional deals because everyone was amped up buying stuff at regular price like hermit hoarders stocking their house with 2 years worth of supplies. Al lot of people didn't have tons of extra money, but they just frontloaded their purchases. We also ran out of stock, so there is no need to do super deals when retailers are ordering tons of stuff at regular prices off us.

 

[Tams]

At the end of the day, the people doing these jobs still need to live lives. Decent lives. And if they are dirt poor, then that often leads to many social issues, especially amongst their children which end up lifelong.

I find the American service industry particularly vile. Tips should never make up salaries. Not that most other countries are paradises, and service jobs often are at the bottom in life.

 

[diffusionx]

We increased prices or cut back on weekly promotional deals because everyone was amped up buying stuff at regular price like hermit hoarders stocking their house with 2 years worth of supplies. Al lot of people didn't have tons of extra money, but they just frontloaded their purchases. We also ran out of stock, so there is no need to do super deals when retailers are ordering tons of stuff at regular prices off us.

supply chain issues were certainly a driver in pricing, they weren't unfucked until like 2022 - actually they're still kind of fucked.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

supply chain issues were certainly a driver in pricing, they weren't unfucked until like 2022 - actually they're still kind of fucked.

for our company, most of the brands solved itself in 2022-2023. But some still persist a bit even in 2024.

 

[Blade2.0]

We increased prices or cut back on weekly promotional deals because everyone was amped up buying stuff at regular price like hermit hoarders stocking their house with 2 years worth of supplies. Al lot of people didn't have tons of extra money, but they just frontloaded their purchases. We also ran out of stock, so there is no need to do super deals when retailers are ordering tons of stuff at regular prices off us.

It's almost like hoarding resources is bad for all of us. That includes money.

 

[Toons]

Right... and we've had 30% inflation on the necessities. Thus proving the point. The "muh profit margins" shit is a democratic party talking point to get people to not talk about the real reasons for the inflation.

Corporations valuing profits over anything else isnt a talking point lmao. Its a reality that has been seen time and time again for decades.

As I said, inflation is a monetary problem, and there is too much money in the system. And two, as I also said, the government is quite fine with massive profit margins because it is one way to act as a relief valve for the excess money (ends up in the stock price). If that money kept moving around the economy inflation would be even worse.

The wealthiest in the country alresdy outspend the poor by orders of magnitude, and they do it on non essentials like luxury cars, designer closing, backing politicians, and prestigious education. Your average celebrity/politician owns a house and car that 1,000 people couldn't pool together and afford.

Sure, profit margins might be able to act as a relief valve, you know what else does? Paying people more money. That money is going to go to necessities first, but it would, eventually lead to small businesses, and big business that do not offer necessities doing alright too. This was the original point of a middle class, a class that basically doesn't even exist anymore because it's been choked out.

Look at the housing market. If you dont already own a house, you're just straight up a creek, there is no chance anyone under 25 who doesn't have a trust fund is going to own a home within the next 15 years at this rate unless there's a crash. They will have to rent, and who owns the lions share of rental properties? Corporations. Its a feedback loop.

The government gave people all this money, are they actually better off now after having gotten that money? Like, let's be real here. I don't think so. Would giving them more money be different? Doubtful.

The vast majority of people didnt get to keep that money, because they had rent to pay, food to buy and mouths to feed and their job either laid them off or cut their hours.

Yes, paying them more money would be different, because when people aren't at a constant deficit, they are more productive, happier, the economy functions better. You can even see in the cable and movie industries, the restaurant industry, retail itself, the ripple effects. People aren't doing things that were once basic pastimes, because they either are too broke or they are using that time at a second job so they have a pillow to lay their head on at night

 

[diffusionx]

The vast majority of people didnt get to keep that money, because they had rent to pay, food to buy and mouths to feed and their job either laid them off or cut their hours.

Yes, paying them more money would be different, because when people aren't at a constant deficit, they are more productive, happier, the economy functions better. You can even see in the cable and movie industries, the restaurant industry, retail itself, the ripple effects. People aren't doing things that were once basic pastimes, because they either are too broke or they are using that time at a second job so they have a pillow to lay their head on at night.

We are going around in circles here. I said that these government transfers triggered inflation, because people spent the money. You said, well, they spent it on necessities. I said, yes, and the inflation hit the necessities, which is my point. So these people ended up worse off than before, now they have to pay 30% higher prices on everything and those transfers are long gone.

You are arguing that corporations should pay people more money - ok, but all the benefits of higher pay don't really work if the *government* forces companies to do so by mandating a higher minimum wage. I said two reasons for that - one, if people spend the money on necessities, then the cost of those necessities will go up. To use a dead simple fact, at the very least, the people offering the goods and servies to minimum wage workers know they now have more money! Two, if the company lays you off because it doesn't want to or cannot pay the higher mandated floor, then it doesn't benefit you at all. It only benefits people with jobs.

 

[diffusionx]

Look at the housing market. If you dont already own a house, you're just straight up a creek, there is no chance anyone under 25 who doesn't have a trust fund is going to own a home within the next 15 years at this rate unless there's a crash. They will have to rent, and who owns the lions share of rental properties? Corporations. Its a feedback loop.

L

this is also an issue with monetary policy (well, and immigration and NIMBY contribute to it). Similar to the stock market, money is going into hard assets like real estate which blows up the price. Government spends too much money, there’s too much money in the system, interest rates were kept low way too long, printing money and handing it out to poor people or forcing companies to pay people more will NOT fix these problems. It’s bad policy to paper over (literally) bad policy.

 

[Durien]

I would also say the housing market has a lot to do with supply and demand. Here in Washington state, we have a huge influx of people coming in compared to leaving (although this is changing given the politics, crime, and homelessness) and not enough housing. Because of this people can charge absurd prices and still get it. Hell, Zillow says my house I bought for 234k is worth over 750k. But why??? Because there is no housing. I also live outside the city by a good 20 to 30 minutes.

The housing they are building now is insane. Like, reach out your window and knock on your neighbors window for a cup of sugar. They are literally that close

Foreign nationals that were buying in Canada (BC) are buying up houses here as BC put rules in place to try and combat this. I never understood this as you would think you would need to be a citizen to buy a house to avoid issues just like the ones happening now.

 

[Toons]

We are going around in circles here. I said that these government transfers triggered inflation, because people spent the money. You said, well, they spent it on necessities. I said, yes, and the inflation hit the necessities, which is my point. So these people ended up worse off than before, now they have to pay 30% higher prices on everything and those transfers are long gone.

Well my point was those necessities didn't HAVE to inflate. I blame that on the corporations behind them, not the people trying to live and eat. This is why I say that corporations can't functionally contribute to a society they don't value on the human level.

You are arguing that corporations should pay people more money - ok, but all the benefits of higher pay don't really work if the *government* forces companies to do so by mandating a higher minimum wage. I said two reasons for that - one, if people spend the money on necessities, then the cost of those necessities will go up. To use a dead simple fact, at the very least, the people offering the goods and servies to minimum wage workers know they now have more money! Two, if the company lays you off because it doesn't want to or cannot pay the higher mandated floor, then it doesn't benefit you at all. It only benefits people with jobs.

Companies need workers, for now at least. They also need customers. When companies can't or won't pay their employees, other companies lose both. They lose workers because no one will work for no money and they lose customers because people with barely money aren't going to spend the money they do have on anything but the most essential things. This also has an after effect of increasing crime, reducing productivity, etc.

Im not saying I have all the answers here, but I will always look to the corporations first to address the problem. Paying actual wages is the least they could do, and a minimum wage shift couldn't possible be worse than the pointless waste of space we have now.

 

[DeafTourette]

Government was created to protect the people.

Asbestos harmed people.

Part time minimum+ jobs aren’t harming SHIIIII. People acting like how anything in life doesn’t have a ladder is beyond me.

I can always count in threads like this for you and Toons to react to any push back hella hard. It’s been like that for years.

It’s all political for you, cool, but in *reality* business can’t do that.

Again, I guarantee neither of you have run or managed a business of any small or medium capacity at all. Margins aren’t huge especially in the food industry, it’s really not a move that makes any sense to longevity.

Your replies are always going to be “CoRpOrAtIoNs CaN pAy It”, which is like - yeah, duh, that’s why they support crap like this (hello Panera) because it’s ends PRIVATE business while the corps flourish in their new wasteland. But let’s bookmark this and come back in a few years. We’ll discuss it further then.

Bonus Question: ever been to California before?

2 things...

I never claimed to own a business but this is a gaming message board, right? Not a business one with stakes. I'm offering my viewpoint just like you are and none of posts make us money. So it doesn't matter!

And I've been to California... Twice. 2012 and 2013 for E3. I had a blast both times! I stayed a month both years.

 

[diffusionx]

Well my point was those necessities didn't HAVE to inflate. I blame that on the corporations behind them, not the people trying to live and eat. This is why I say that corporations can't functionally contribute to a society they don't value on the human level.

Money is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as anything else. If you increase the money supply massively, then individual dollars are worth less than before.

Companies need workers, for now at least. They also need customers. When companies can't or won't pay their employees, other companies lose both. They lose workers because no one will work for no money and they lose customers because people with barely money aren't going to spend the money they do have on anything but the most essential things. This also has an after effect of increasing crime, reducing productivity, etc.

Im not saying I have all the answers here, but I will always look to the corporations first to address the problem. Paying actual wages is the least they could do, and a minimum wage shift couldn't possible be worse than the pointless waste of space we have now.

I'm not advocating against pay increases, I am saying taht whatever utility you get from them is mostly lost when the government forces it. IIRC there has been wage growth at the lower income percentiles the past few years.

 

[Durien]

High home prices are 'feudalizing' California as unaffordable housing markets pose existential threat to middle class, study says

There are unaffordable housing markets, and then there are "impossibly unaffordable" markets, four of which are in California, a recent study said.

fortune.com