Money's just a means to an end, to secure resources for the owner. In a money-less society, jeff bezos would be just as happy if his customers paid him in rocket parts instead.
That would be a quality control nightmare on his part to vet alone. And what's to say people still wouldn't "skim off the top" with or without money in society?
This is too vague. They're to make the owner(s) money by voluntary exchange of value with customers. They're not feudalism where the lord makes money off the serfs, who have no choice. It's not monarchy where..it's basically the same. It's not socialism, where the bureaucracy is enriched by the people it pretends to be a fair parent-surrogate to. It's just free interchange of value. And you can provide more value if your costs are lower.
The issue with hiring many juniors is, when there is another dev boom, all the juniors that were hired, now mids or seniors, are going to jump ship to whoever is going to pay them the most.
So, the company can either grow talent and then pay them market rate or hire at market rates from other companies that grew them. Hiring juniors, while good for the industry in the long run, doesn't really benefit an individual company.
It is game theory and it is still why senior developers make a lot of money despite there being an oversupply of juniors.
Also, a lot of companies are not attractive enough for seniors (low job security/ not good environment/ not exciting work/ etc), so they are forced to hire juniors
Certainly. So would materials expenses and theft and insurance and so forth.
But the confusion is that somehow, money not spent on “salaries and compensation” doesn’t go to people. All of it goes to people.
Defense spending isn’t buying “defense”, it’s buying time and effort for people to focus on and produce defense related things. This is the root of the original post that defense spending is a jobs program.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume everything you said is true.
Would you agree if I reworded my statement to “ultimately, all money eventually flows to people, whether for their labor or due to their ownership of the entities receiving the money”?
Ownership is a legal concept, you could even call it fictional.
So yes, all transactions can be linked be back to individuals, if you ignore all details and make some gigantic leaps of faith... But what's the insight?
Are we just doing philosophy like in ancient Greece?
yes, but "salaries and compensation" are people doing work, and profit gets paid to shareholders. Most people would agree that the bulk of taxpayer dollars should go to working people and not shareholders, these are two entirely different categories.
All of it goes to people, is such a reduction. We could just cut a check to Elon Musk and claim "All of goes to people". It is important to establish the difference, between paying people for labor and giving people money in the form of profit.
Maybe, sarcasm was aimed at 'natural' being 'harmless' and/or common, because it is 'natural'.
When really, just being 'natural', doesn't mean anything really. There are poisons that are 'natural'.
Like resveratrol. Yes, it is natural and its in wine. But you need to drink many gallons a day to get enough to do anything. But people see 'Natural' and wine, and think it is a license to drink a lot.
The total of all federal employees salary is only 4.3% of the budget.
If you want to balance the budget using cuts you would have to make significant cuts to all of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Military. These, along with net interest, are not only the largest areas of the budget, but also the ones increasing their share of the budget.
The biggest difference between the balanced budget of the 90s and today is the two large tax cuts pass by Bush and Trump. The reason you probably don't feel that you are paying significant less is because the lion's share of these cuts went to corporations and the upper class. As evidence by the expanding wealth inequality and share of corporate taxes.
This is less then the number of people who retire from the federal government every year. I would expect a significant number of these people to be people who were going to retire anyway and want get out a few months early:
>>The index for shelter rose 0.4 percent in July, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the monthly increase in the all items index.
Shelter seems to be the most tightly coupled item to interest rates. This to me seems like this will create a more hawkish fed.
I have heard some people say that higher interest rates are causing housing to go up because people aren't moving or building houses, but I don't think the fed has the same opinions. I would think the fed would not like to have a 0% interest rate for some time seeing as how it messed up the housing market for a decade.
Best case we see little to no housing appreciation over the next 10 years and that will bring us back to normal. Hopefully we don't see an appreciation like we have the last 10 years, that would not be a sustainable system and would likely further deteriorate the american dream.
Food inflation seems to be doing well, so that is encouraging.
With Biden cutting off migration at the border, construction companies, particularly in the South, are going to have a hard time finding workers at prices that people are used to paying for labor. This will either raise the cost of new builds or delay them, leading to an even bigger shortage in supply.
>Not if there is a monopoly on service and you can't afford.
Where do you live that gas stations operate as an monopoly? Gas stations are heavily competitive and operate on razor thin margins.
>The gas and electric company already know who you are. I wouldn't put it past them to start doing this.
Those are heavily regulated utilities. In most jurisdictions they don't even have the power to set their own prices, and they can't even cut you off for non-payment without going through months of warnings. They're certainly not going to refuse service because you can't scan an NFC card or whatever.
They are heavily regulated now, but it's inconceivable that these industries become more unregulated, it's not hard to make an argument that companies should be able set there own prices.
