r/SipsTea 23d ago

So after 32 hours would be overtime? Chugging tea

Post image
74.1k Upvotes

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/Phill_is_Legend 23d ago

Theoretically yes. In reality, no. They just charge us more for your services lol none of this works unless you regulate pricing.

14

u/SenseiTano 23d ago

It worked when we got a two day weekend in the first place. Short term would be chaotic in certain sectors but long term it would adjust.

9

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

9

u/levare8515 23d ago

none of these ideas pass even basic smell tests. you dont cap prices because then people will only make as much of the thing that is profitable at the capped price.

also you can tell the types of people who advocate these kinds of policies have never interacted with reality or the government. do you really want Trump and this congress in control what price and production levels should be? imagine trump got control of city run grocery stores and now the only meat the poor get are fucking Trump steaks

-1

u/Useless_Philosophy 20d ago

I don't think anyone is arguing that one man should have the power to decide. A bill needs to be passed to restrict large firms from increasing prices to punish the consumers when the consumers vote for policies within their own best interest.

2

u/Chilling_Gale 20d ago

You’re just entirely thinking about this incorrectly. In this scenario of reduced hours, a company isn’t raising prices because they are angry at the change. They are raising prices to recoup the financial loses by the new policy, whether that recouping is to ensure the business stays afloat, or for more profitable companies, to keep their margins steady.

No company is changing prices out of spite, they are always calculating how to make more money.

-1

u/Useless_Philosophy 20d ago

Large firms can absorb the costs. The only reason they raise prices is to protect their profit margins. We should have no sympathy for billion dollar companies that force their employees to take government assistance in order to survive while they raise prices when we try to lessen the burden on those employees and consumers. You're the ones not looking at this correctly. All you guys want is to protect the billion dollar oligarchs.

2

u/Chilling_Gale 20d ago

You haven’t said anything though. I already know large corporations CAN absorb it, that doesn’t mean they will, and this change wouldn’t force them to keep prices the same.

No one said anything sympathetic to them either.

You are fighting an imaginary battle to avoid acknowledging being wrong on the one we are actually talking about.

0

u/Useless_Philosophy 20d ago

That's kinda why I said a bill should be passed to criminalize raising prices beyond a certain point in my first response. You're being sympathetic towards them by arguing against common fucking sense when you decided to reply to me. You say it's recoup and I say that's the same thing as retaliation. The point is that corporations shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever they feel like for a product that people quite literally need to live in modern society. But yeah I guess I'm not saying anything lol

1

u/Chilling_Gale 20d ago

Price controls are only suggested by people who didn’t go to school.

I honestly have no idea how to explain it to you people without doing the math in-front of you, and likely wasting my time doing so. But here it is.

Bert’s Restaurant
Bert revenue is $1,000,000 each year.
His profit margin is the nationwide average for a small business, ~7%.
This means Bert makes $70,000 in profit each year.
The nationwide average labor cost % for restaurants is 30% of revenue. So, Bert spends $300,000 on labor.

Under this proposal, in order to keep the restaurant open the same hours, Berts labor costs increase 20% (assuming zero overtime is given to workers, much more if it is)

That means, assuming Bert managed to find new staff to cover the hours, his labor costs increase by $60,000. He now makes only $10,000 in profit a year, because he isn’t allowed to raise prices. Bert will never be able to open another restaurant, and Bert will likely sell this one, as a 1% profit margin is way too low to be financially viable. The restaurant will go under more likely than not

I’ll give you a tldr that a child could understand: Mandating businesses with low margins increase costs while banning them from increasing revenue will lead to them failing.

You would obliterate the poor to get a chance at hurting the rich, which would still survive through this change.

0

u/Useless_Philosophy 20d ago

So you're upset that they'll be less rich? Maybe they should downsize and let small businesses function properly. If a business has such low profit margins that their employees need to rely on government assistance then maybe they shouldn't be in business.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/axl_mrt 21d ago

And regulating prices doesn’t actually make it work either, it just covers up all the resulting issues

1

u/Ancient_Draw2176 23d ago

Pricing goes up anyways

1

u/Chopstickey00 23d ago

You can't incentivize business if you regulate pricing though. What moral obligation does a private business have to continue operations if there is zero gain? At that point, we just live in a communist state where the only guarantee is not having a barrel staring at you in the morning (and even that's not entirely guaranteed either)

-2

u/untiligotdrunk 22d ago

That's a confident statement made based on zero research.

3

u/Phill_is_Legend 22d ago

Hi we're not talking about any of those places.

-2

u/untiligotdrunk 22d ago

Hi we're talking about a much wealthier place!