Worrying statistics about American's retirement future - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15296944
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why should companies pay people more than they absolutely have to?

Why should companies charge any less than the maximum possible?

You seem to be changing the topic and sending us down another contentious rabbit hole.
If you want to talk about and focus on that topic, maybe you should start a new thread.

I will point out that workers are not the only ones in competition with each other, employers are in competition with other employers.
There does exist some pressure on businesses not to raise prices too high. That often trickles down to workers, so the business is under constraints and economic pressure not to pay them too much.
#15296971
@Puffer Fish

Yes, capitalism is set up so that employers are competing with each other. For profit. Both companies want the most skilled workers, and both want to pay this skilled worker the absolute least amount possible.

While this makes it harder for people to retire, companies just want to make money.
#15296995
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Puffer Fish

Why should companies pay people more than they absolutely have to?

Why should companies charge any less than the maximum possible?

If workers end up being paid so little that they cannot afford these maximum prices, they should have been born richer.


I disagree with your tongue-in-cheek statement. Underpaid workers should have forced the Gov. to rewrite the rules the economy uses so that they get paid more, and the corps make less profit, but still some profit.
#15297009
Steve_American wrote:Underpaid workers should have forced the Gov. to rewrite the rules the economy uses so that they get paid more, and the corps make less profit, but still some profit.

This notion might be problematic in industries that have very slim profit margins. In those industries, total profits may be high, but profits per worker are low. If you reduce profits enough, it will eliminate the incentive to employ workers and do business. The only other way out of this conundrum is if the burden falls on consumers in the form of increased prices.
#15297011
Puffer Fish wrote:This notion might be problematic in industries that have very slim profit margins. In those industries, total profits may be high, but profits per worker are low. If you reduce profits enough, it will eliminate the incentive to employ workers and do business. The only other way out of this conundrum is if the burden falls on consumers in the form of increased prices.


There is another way. The Gov. could feed money to the corps, like it does for the oil corps.

Or, the Gov. could feed money to the workers like it does with WalMart workers who quaify for food stamps, etc.
#15297201
Steve_American wrote:Sorry, but that is wrong.

I googled "Hpw does SS calculate your benefit" and the 1st result was =>

How Social Security benefits are calculated
Social Security has two main criteria for whether you earn retirement benefits and how much they are if you do qualify:
You must earn a minimum number of credits to even qualify for retirement benefits.
Your retirement benefits depend on how much you’ve paid into the system over your 35 highest-earning years.
The calculation is complicated, but does not all depend on any one year. My reading of the formula is that no one year is special, what matters is how much you earned in each year.


Ah, thank you. That's good to know. That is even more incentive for anyone to find better paying jobs.

1) Cite it properly 2) Provide an updated source[…]

https://rsf.org/en/israeli-politicians-call-journa[…]

If we went by effectiveness in exterminating popul[…]

I have no idea who this poster is, but for what it[…]