- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39504475
You must log in or register to comment.
What I find ultimately hilarious (in a “can’t cry, have to laugh way”) is this. HOW THE FUCK WILL ANYONE BUY THE SHIT YOU’RE PEDDLING WHEN WE’RE ALL BROKE? Like - isn’t it obvious? All this fucking corporate greed can only lead to bankruptcy of your business you short-sighted cunts.
They’re taught that the long run is simply a succession of short runs and that therefore short term and long term economic thinking and planning are the same,which is,of course, glaringly wrong.
Anything to fill the insatiable hole in them where a soul would be in a real human.
They constantly fall under fallacies of composition or aggregation. To think in the aggregate and long term is largely thrown under the rug.
It’s “right” for a single company to slash wages and gut employment to seek higher profit margins… But when every company does it, it ultimately destroys the capacity of the bottom to uphold the top and it collapses.
Yeah what you’re describing, in computerized maths, is called a “local minimum”.
When you’re seeking out a global minimum of a function, such as in this example:
You might be tempted to think “well, i start somewhere, then i take one small step after another, always going downhill, until i am at the lowest point”. But what happens in practice, is that you get stuck in so called “local minimums”. For a visualization:
That is the fundamental problem with being short-sighted (i.e., taking one small step after another, always going downhill). If you really want to find the global minimum, you have to think globally. You have to apply analysis to the whole function, not just local parts of it, to find the best spot.
Great visualization and further explication for more visual learners. Love this type of comment on Lemmy where it’s to further discussion and help clarify.
Appreciate that now I can use “local minimum” in a correct way with people :D
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how companies are thinking.
They are thinking “well, if i pay my workers 10% less, surely they have 10% less money to spend, and that means they buy fewer products, and that hurts revenue, but they probably buy some other company’s products anyway, so that’s other company’s loss, not mine.”
companies aren’t so much an organized hivemind as people seem to be thinking. A lot of them are literally competing against one another, and they don’t care whether other businesses struggle because they pay their employees less.
I mean, they often dom’t even care if their own employees struggle as long as they continue working for the company. Why would they care about other companies, or even the greater economy in total? They don’t. Who should care, though, is the government. The US has an incredibly weak government that does not protect its citizens and give them appropriate subsidies. That’s why people are having economic hardships.
