• @RememberTheApollo_
    link
    133 months ago

    Are the “oversimplified chalkboard economics” basically the businesses winging about having to pay people more?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      What follows is incorrect

      It’s a price floor, which creates a deadweight loss.

      Since we’re also consumers, it’s a net loss.

      • @undergroundoverground
        link
        33 months ago

        Tbf, economics has to presume inequality to be non existent. If they dont, inequality is the overriding factor that makes all the other forces at play pale in comparison. So, they remove inequality.

        Again, tbf, in a world with no inequality, where only the very best and brightest rise to the top and not just a endless stream of nepo babies, with whole institutions in place to ensure a lack of social mobility, a national minimum wage would be a bad idea. Just like tax breaks for the rich would fix any problem you had, in that fake - made up world that could never exist.

        But, as you allude to, in the real world, things are very different.

      • @naught101
        link
        23 months ago

        Should it not just be integrated in to the supply cost?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 months ago

              Intuitive chalkboard economics lead to the net loss conclusion above. Experimental reality as described in the study says otherwise.