I acknowledge that real people aren't eating, and that that's an important point. But, again, I point out that those not eating include those unemployed as well as those currently making minimum wage. Ignoring either group makes it impossible to reach a valid conclusion. (I don't, as I said before, know how to balance harm to one vs. harm to the other in any case; I don't claim to be able to reach a valid conclusion, I just feel it's necessary to consider BOTH groups to have any possibility of doing so).
Of course, if the claim is false, then it is easy; if there's no benefit to anybody, then there's no conflict between different benefits, which makes it much easier to reach a valid conclusion.
I have seen businesses choose to increase employment. On one day, they were getting by with a set number of employees, and yet they chose to increase that number the next day. I've even seen them do that in situations other than when they were obviously just skirting disaster. I've seen stores increase how frequently they plowed the parking lot. I've seen them decide to bring cleaning crews through more often. I've seen businesses decide to wash the windows more often. And I'm quite certain that the cost of doing those things was one of the factors considered when they made these decisions. So, without for a moment disagreeing with your opinion that improving the bottom line is their goal, I WILL disagree with your opinion that they will never hire more people if people get cheaper.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: When does Krugman get to be president like Bartlet?
Date: 2009-12-17 02:49 am (UTC)Of course, if the claim is false, then it is easy; if there's no benefit to anybody, then there's no conflict between different benefits, which makes it much easier to reach a valid conclusion.
I have seen businesses choose to increase employment. On one day, they were getting by with a set number of employees, and yet they chose to increase that number the next day. I've even seen them do that in situations other than when they were obviously just skirting disaster. I've seen stores increase how frequently they plowed the parking lot. I've seen them decide to bring cleaning crews through more often. I've seen businesses decide to wash the windows more often. And I'm quite certain that the cost of doing those things was one of the factors considered when they made these decisions. So, without for a moment disagreeing with your opinion that improving the bottom line is their goal, I WILL disagree with your opinion that they will never hire more people if people get cheaper.