The Law of Unintended Consequences Will Kick You In The Balls Every Time

[abaris]

And its amazing how often those solutions seem to involve some form of just pay your employees more and problem solved.

Both approaches have consequences. Paying less reduces consumer power. Paying more can lead to inflation. But paying less and less, as is the standard right now, has to lead to less consumer power at some point, hence less demand.

[Chad32]

Its always heartwarming to read these threads where people with no background in economics nor any experience running a business and keeping profitable have all the solutions to economic problems. And its amazing how often those solutions seem to involve some form of just pay your employees more and problem solved.

More pay means more customers, and more customers means more income without having to jack up the prices much. Right? I know I'd be buying more stuff if I had a bigger budget.

[Minimalist]

In the long run it is irrelevant.  Allowing business to pay workers such shitty wages simply entitles them to various social assistance programs which the taxpayers support anyway.  'Murrica is one big subsidy for big criminal business interests.  The fucks love corporate "socialism."

Pay your fucking workers properly so they don't need welfare you greedy scumbags.

[Anomalocaris]

Its always heartwarming to read these threads where people with no background in economics nor any experience running a business and keeping profitable have all the solutions to economic problems. And its amazing how often those solutions seem to involve some form of just pay your employees more and problem solved.

More pay means more customers, and more customers means more income without having to jack up the prices much. Right? I know I'd be buying more stuff if I had a bigger budget.

no, those whom you paid more, have more spending power and can efford to spend more and become the more customers.  But the total pot of goods and services in the economy hasn't changed.  So if those paid more buys  more, others per force can by less with their existing pay.   So paying American more to do jobs where they are no more productive then Mexican illegals is a perverse wealth transfer that incentivized those Americans who vote, but whose expectations exceed their deserts, to not work harder to increase their deserts, but instead wrap themselves with flags and bedsheets and conical hats with eye holes to demonize immigrants, and minorities in the bargain.

[Autumnlicious]

Long way to say "Welfare handouts to the Klan."

[johan]

More pay means more customers

If you say so. I used to work in aviation. Flight instructors tend to make about $20 per flight hour. All time they spend at the flight school not flying is generally unpaid. So lets pay the flight instructors the $60 per flight hour they probably deserve and also pay them $20 per hour they put in at the flight school not flying. Great. Now flight instructors are finally making a living wage.

Now as expensive as flight training already is, flight schools actually operate on razor thin margins. Cost of insurance is a big factor. Cost of keeping the equipment maintained per FAA requirements is also huge and not getting any cheaper.

So please explain in detail how increasing the wage for flight instructors translates into more customers for the flight school which somehow won't have to 'raise prices much'.

[abaris]

So please explain in detail how increasing the wage for flight instructors translates into more customers for the flight school which somehow won't have to 'raise prices much'.

It doesn't translate into more people attending flight school. It translates into flight instructos being able to afford more. Or not, if inflation rolls over the raise.

[Chad32]

More pay means more customers

If you say so. I used to work in aviation. Flight instructors tend to make about $20 per flight hour. All time they spend at the flight school not flying is generally unpaid. So lets pay the flight instructors the $60 per flight hour they probably deserve and also pay them $20 per hour they put in at the flight school not flying. Great. Now flight instructors are finally making a living wage.

Now as expensive as flight training already is, flight schools actually operate on razor thin margins. Cost of insurance is a big factor. Cost of keeping the equipment maintained per FAA requirements is also huge and not getting any cheaper.

So please explain in detail how increasing the wage for flight instructors translates into more customers for the flight school which somehow won't have to 'raise prices much'.

I was thinking more in terms of someone who sells goods. If everyone's paid more, then more people are buying the goods you're selling, so you're getting more income at the same time you're paying your employees more. Who might, in turn, use some of their money to pay for the goods you're selling as well.

You're talking about education, which is another topic, and probably falls under "use taxpayer money to provide education and training, so more people have opportunities to become better, and give more to society".

[johan]

So please explain in detail how increasing the wage for flight instructors translates into more customers for the flight school which somehow won't have to 'raise prices much'.

It doesn't translate into more people attending flight school.

You said more pay means more customers. Now you say that more pay doesn't mean more customers. Which is it? Also if paying the flight instructors more doesn't equal more customers for the flight school, then how exactly does the flight school stay in business and keep the flight instructors employed?

[abaris]

You said more pay means more customers. Now you say that more pay doesn't mean more customers. Which is it? Also if paying the flight instructors more doesn't equal more customers for the flight school, then how exactly does the flight school stay in business and keep the flight instructors employed?

Yeah, because it misspelled. It should have read comsumers instead of customers.