In case anyone loses sight of what these republican cocksuckers want

[Autumnlicious]

I still fundamentally disagree with you. In your scenario, doubling the workers would not double the productivity. The bottle neck in your example is not the # of workers but the # of registers. Say that there were only 5 registers. Adding 5 more servers would not reduce time needed. Also, there is a finite amount of space...having servers falling over each other would not increase efficiency but rather decrease it. So once again, if i'm running the business you described, I would pay enough to get the most efficient server. Since this is a low skill job, the cost of training is not figured into a wage assessment.

Bottom line, whether its a low skilled position or highly skilled position, a profit seeking business will always seek to keep pay as low as possible. The main difference between low & high skill is that low skill workers have no bargaining power & the job pool is larger; therefore the job will go to the lowest bidder.

Finally!

Someone who understands economics in under the context of algorithms and optimization, and not some stupid simplistic "the supply and demand for workers by companies will set their wages" shit.

Reminds me of the ridiculous "libertarian" economic ideas. Take, for example, if a corporation becomes an abusive entity, to environment, consumers, et al.

Libertarians never seem to realize that organizing and coordinating people who are completely unassociated (i.e. consumers) is magnitudes more difficult and unlikely than the average corporation.

Corporations have a lifetime of decades. A community that could theoretically react against an abusive entity? Decades to hundreds of years (possibly longer).

So we have a complete difference in scale when it comes to the reaction time of a corporation versus that of a community, as well as the impulse required and time required to react is more difficult to reach for a community (once again, scale and social dynamics) than a corporation (which lives, financially, on quarters of years).

So in essence, the libertarian fantasy world idea of consumers banding together against abusive corporations or "choosing" another entity (if there is no viable alternative, they have to coordinate to establish such or do business with the abusive entity) is just that -- a fantasy.

It's been known to happen, but on a usual, day to day casing, a massive amount of abuse can be committed by any set number of corporations, and get away with it because the cost/time for a community to actually react and say "No" is too damn high.

And only in the few occasions where an entity (i.e. transnational corporation) goes too far (EX: oil spills) does the community (ex United States) react (ex: fines, investigations, etc).

This is the grand reason why we have:
- regulation (and avoid regulatory capture!)
- class action suits

Really, you need to understand the application of virulence theory to the interaction between a massive scale system (i.e. host or society) and another, much smaller ones (i.e. pathogens or companies).

Most "libertarians" are simplistic dolts who really are selling a system that can be wildly abused by the few, under the promise of releasing us from the few!

How frustrating...