Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bko 3986 days ago
Businesses would generally charge the price that would result in the most profit (revenue - expenses). Businesses can't just raise prices and get more revenue. If they could, they would do that already.

Minimum wage has to do with marginal cost of producing an extra product. Marginal cost generally increases after a while. So producing that last additional unit usually costs more than the one before. When you increase cost in the form of the price of human capital, the marginal cost of producing a unit will increase and the intersection with the marginal revenue (price of the unit) will drop to a lower quantity supplied and higher price.

So yes, prices will go up but the business will also sell less units. Since less units are sold, there will be less capital that will need to be utilized.

Prices aren't arbitrarily set and increase in price will result in less units being sold and less employment. This isn't as controversial as journalists make it out to be.

Pre-political Paul Krugman does a great job explaining it:

> So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

> What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda–for arguing that living wages “can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America” (as this book’s back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects.[0]

[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/02/paul-krug...

2 comments

> Businesses can't just raise prices and get more revenue. Right, businesses gauge how much consumers are willing to pay. If minimum wages go up and businesses raise prices while citing said minimum wage increases, consumers will likely be willing to pay the higher prices. Consumers generally won't tolerate price increases that are not justified. Those increases that are justified are more readily accepted. This is why I think businesses can and will pass higher minimum wage costs down to the consumer, successfully.
> Marginal cost generally increases after a while

That is possible, but I would generally expect the opposite with economies of scale.

In modern economics the assumption is that marginal cost decreases for a while due to economies of scale, but then increases. It's a bit confusing, but consider this, at first you will devote the best resources to their best appropriate task. If you buy a factory, you'll buy the most cost effective factory and you'll hire the most cost effective people. As you expand, you'll have to maybe get another factory that may not be as well suited (if it were, you would have gone with it in the first place) and hire the second best person, and so on. This is called diseconomies of scale. Similarly, running organizations above a certain size creates plenty of inefficiencies that also contribute to increased marginal cost.

Both economies of scale and diseconomies of scale play a role. Think about it in the extremes. Would a company be able to produce 2x, 10x, 100x the product they currently produce now at the same per unit cost, or less? If not, then there must be some point at which the marginal cost is upward sloping.

I believe this is the reason that large companies don't necessarily lead innovation. For instance, a company like Facebook could have easily created a Snapchat, but it could not. It wasn't even successful imitating the product after several attempts (popularity, not functionality).

More: http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/microecon...