throwaway73838

Having existed pre and post Uber, in my country (Australia), here are my thoughts:

Ordering an Uber is far, far quicker and easier than getting a taxi.

Getting an Uber is still far cheaper. In the old days, if you were traveling after 10pm, you’d very often be charged up to $10 from before you’d even closed the door.

That lead to taxis feeling like luxury vehicles. Catching an Uber seems so mundane by comparison.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Is that one of those cultures that had invented the wheel for a child’s toy, but not for any more practical purpose?

No mention of musical applications. I’d be curious to hear what one sounded like.

I agree. I think eating meat is abhorrent, and genetically mutilating animals even more so. Selective breeding is one thing, but this opens the doors to all kinds of ‘design gene’ questions that I don’t think the world is ready for, or ever should be.

That would work both ways though. Employers could also be overpaying staff by the same token. So what you are saying is just a lie told to stupid people to take their money away from them.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you understood economics, you would understand the absurdity of what you just said.

You’re rejecting the most fundamental basic of economics. It’s what you learn on day one. Changes to price will alter the equilibrium point and therefore quantity demanded.

For example: If I raise the price of milk, people will buy less milk. How much less they buy depends on elasticity of demand. But to say that increasing the price of milk will result in increased demand for milk is the equivalent of saying that water flows uphill.

“ The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that “water runs uphill,” no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.” ~James M. Buchanan, 1986 Nobel laureate in economics, writing in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 1996

“ The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that “water runs uphill,” no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.” ~James M. Buchanan, 1986 Nobel laureate in economics, writing in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 1996

Re: Krueger’s study:

“The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that “water runs uphill,” no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.” ~James M. Buchanan, 1986 Nobel laureate in economics, writing in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 1996

Krueger’s study was highly flawed. What it amounted to, was, as one economist put it, attempting to prove that water flows uphill, by looking only at the upward movement of water in a rapids. It’s politically correct, feel good nonsense. Just because you’ve found an exception does not nullify the rule - as in chaotic systems, sometimes water does flow up hill. But economics solves this issue by studying the underlying forces.

I think of the economy as a biological extension of our species. Any attempt to control or regulate it can only result in inefficiency (beyond the obvious maintenance of contracts and outlawing of violence).

Another way to look at money is as analogous to energy - and like with energy, it cannot be created nor destroyed (which is different from growth of the economy as a whole due to innovation). So any time you see a policy which appears to “create value” by shifting it around, will create slightly more losers than winners, if you take a holistic view (eg, increase cost of labour, decrease comparative advantage and decrease spending on research and development).

I don’t see the logic. If what you’re saying was true, the free market would do this anyway. Employment is mathematically the same as any other commodity - mandatory price floors will make people who’s real value is lower than the market rate become unemployed.

I think evidence is important here. Look at the unemployment level of Singapore (no minimum wage). Now look at the same for Australia (high minimum wage). A great many jobs exist in Singapore that wouldn’t exist in Australia (such as people who conduct customer experience surveys at airports in SG) because it wouldn’t be profitable.

If you can give me a clear, direct, non vague, logically justified, and non conspiratorial alternative explanation, I’ll eat my hat.

THANK YOU. Finally someone who gets it. We are being taken for a ride, by people who prey on and actively promote ignorance. Economics is an incredibly simple discipline for anyone with more than half a brain, and an interest in learning something new. Unfortunately, we’re essentially living in the dark ages.

That’s silly. Of course increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment. It’s theoretically proven, and you can observe the evidence in the real world. And it’s simply common sense.

Say you have a business which employs ten staff at $10 an hour, who work at 85% capacity, and your business is breaking even. The minimum wage is raised to $11. Now, you have a choice. Either your business starts losing money and will fail, or you lay off one staffer and increase the workload of the other 9. You could also raise prices (which will increase the cost of living and nullify the benefits of increased wages across the board). Or most likely you do both - lay off one staffer and increase prices to make up for the difference in productivity. Your 10th worker is now unemployed, at a time with a great many ‘tenth workers’, and the cost of living has just increased. Sound familiar?

Look at the minimum wage of Singapore. There is no minimum wage. And observe their unemployment rate - one of the lowest of any developed nation. These statistics are closely linked, due to the above mentioned facts which have been known for hundreds of years.

Economics has been poisoned by vested interests, lobby groups and general ignorance for so long, that people don’t understand that it’s an incredibly simple and intuitive discipline. It’s just that so much profit can be made by obfuscation and promises of ‘free money’. People are extraordinarily easy to fool if they haven’t had a classical education in economics (or an ability to grasp the concepts, which many are counter intuitive).

So how many lives were saved by vaccines (to the nearest thousand)? And how many by lockdowns?