Jonathan
- 363
- 0
Sorry to get off topic again, but I have to defend myself. You guys wholly misconstrued what I said. I said:
The italicized part is important. What I mean is that you sell a product for about the average amount. Your material costs will be the same no matter what we'll assume. But you pay the workers very little. (Oh, and by 'you' I mean the collective business owners of a country.) From this we can get a vague inequality:
[I-(M+w)]>[I-(M+W)]
where I is the income from your product, M is the cost of materials, the parts inside the brackets on each side is your profit, w is the very little you pay the workers, and W is the minimum wage you should feel is ethical to pay your workers (but obviously don't).
What this shows is that you, the collective business owners of some country, will benefit by paying your workers very little and pocketing the cash you saved by doing so.
This I feel is self evident, one really needn't take a class to get it.
(I just added the italics.)...if you charge a reasonable amount for a product but pay the workers little or nothing, of course the GDP is going to be big.
The italicized part is important. What I mean is that you sell a product for about the average amount. Your material costs will be the same no matter what we'll assume. But you pay the workers very little. (Oh, and by 'you' I mean the collective business owners of a country.) From this we can get a vague inequality:
[I-(M+w)]>[I-(M+W)]
where I is the income from your product, M is the cost of materials, the parts inside the brackets on each side is your profit, w is the very little you pay the workers, and W is the minimum wage you should feel is ethical to pay your workers (but obviously don't).
What this shows is that you, the collective business owners of some country, will benefit by paying your workers very little and pocketing the cash you saved by doing so.
This I feel is self evident, one really needn't take a class to get it.