Started By
Message

re: EBC Book #1 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:31 pm to
Posted by RedStickBR
Member since Sep 2009
14577 posts
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:31 pm to
Another tremendous point:

quote:

It is contended that wages can easily be lifted without lifting prices. When it becomes obvious that wages can be raised only at the expense of profits, the bureaucrats begin to argue that profits were already too high anyway and that lifting wages and holding prices will still permit a "fair profit." [As profit margins are different amongst firms,] the result of this policy is to drive the least profitable concerns out of business altogether, [and thus] discourage or stop the production of certain items. This means unemployment, a shrinkage in production and a decline in living standards.


But if those with the lowest profit margins are driven out of business, supply would go down relative to demand and prices at the surviving firms would necessarily go up in response. Net-net, the consumer is no better off and all you've accomplished is shifting profits from less efficient firms (e.g. moms and pops) to more efficient firms (e.g. the Wal-Marts that the left is supposed to hate). If the large firms are more efficient because they use less labor, you're effectively reducing the number of jobs even though you're increasing the average wage of the jobs that remain.

That is, you're robbing local Peter to pay corporate Paul and you're also robbing worker Peter (no more job) to pay worker Paul (higher wage).

I had this exact conversation with my lefty sister recently, and her response was that Wal-Mart should simply make due with lower profits. Wouldn't that make other firms more competitive? And what if those other firms are just as greedy (or greedier) than Wal-Mart used to be?
Posted by RickySauwce
BR
Member since Dec 2011
740 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 7:07 am to
Question,

Speaking of the Tariff chapter which is what I just finished. Hazlitt states that if we buy the less costly sweater at 25$ from Great Britain then they will have more US dollars to buy exports from us. What happens if they choose to use those dollars in trade with another country rather than the US. Wouldn't we be worst off in that case then if the 5$ duty was in place.
Posted by GregYoureMyBoyBlue
Member since Apr 2011
2963 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:03 am to
quote:


But if those with the lowest profit margins are driven out of business, supply would go down relative to demand and prices at the surviving firms would necessarily go up in response. Net-net, the consumer is no better off and all you've accomplished is shifting profits from less efficient firms (e.g. moms and pops) to more efficient firms (e.g. the Wal-Marts that the left is supposed to hate). If the large firms are more efficient because they use less labor, you're effectively reducing the number of jobs even though you're increasing the average wage of the jobs that remain.

That is, you're robbing local Peter to pay corporate Paul and you're also robbing worker Peter (no more job) to pay worker Paul (higher wage).

I had this exact conversation with my lefty sister recently, and her response was that Wal-Mart should simply make due with lower profits. Wouldn't that make other firms more competitive? And what if those other firms are just as greedy (or greedier) than Wal-Mart used to be?



Additionally, profits accumulated by Wal-Mart would then be used to grow, build more stores, thereby increasing the need for more workers. As the demand for workers grows, in theory, the wages for said workers will increase. The biggest problem is the whole "skilled vs unskilled" labor, but even this can be solved by growth.

Case in point, I live in a fairly burgeoning city right now. Growth has been very good, and you can't go to a restaurant anymore that doesn't have a need for more waiters and waitresses. I was talking with a couple of the owners and was asking them about their concerns in the business and every single person said labor. They couldn't find enough quality labor (not skilled), but quality labor, so they are resorting to marketing higher wages, flexibility, and higher average take home (inclusive of tips). After speaking with some of the staff at my local watering hole, many were now leaving the current job to take other jobs that were offering more money and flexibility. Funny how that works huh?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram