crocodile wrote on Sep 9
th, 2014 at 1:20pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 9
th, 2014 at 1:00pm:
crocodile wrote on Sep 9
th, 2014 at 12:55pm:
Dnarever wrote on Sep 9
th, 2014 at 10:03am:
crocodile wrote on Sep 9
th, 2014 at 9:51am:
At last, you're learning. The fella selling at $20 will make no money because his volume will be zilch. He has to drop his price. He will settle at the sweet spot where volume x margin yields the maximum profit. If there is any change in demand because of a price restructure the sweet spot will move.
By the way, do you think that the reduction in smoking over the years might just have a little bit to do with the price of a packet of fags.
At last, you're learning. The fella selling at $20 will make no money because his volume will be zilch
You are the one suggesting $20.
The problem isn't your market philosophy - it is just that it will not happen. They will just take the easy profit the lazy way with no risk associated.
If people are throwing money at you the best policy is to try to catch it.
I'm suggesting $20 for the exercise because Smithy intimated that demand is unaffected by price way back on page 2. You seem to suggest that all business owners are lazy sods that would do jack to look at ways of increasing profits.
You're getting off track.
From the OP: "
EMPLOYERS would hire more young workers within months if the federal government reformed workplace laws to free up penalty rates, Liberal MPs are claiming, as they renew a push for changes."
No, they wouldn't.
Employers would
not hire more people to do the same amount of work.
They'd have a lower wage bill, and nothing else would change.
I never said I agreed.
I did say, if you read the earlier pages that it wasn't so simple.My comment from page two: "
Your trying to simplify something that is not so simple. There are hordes of factors at play. Given the right circumstances the abolition of penalties could allow employment opportunities. In other cases it may not. Believe it or not, it could, in some cases be detrimental."
The responses of the last few pages are to those who seem to think that what the politician said is absolutely impossible in all cases. It's not.
Yes, yes silly person, we all know that there are many variables involved and yes every businessperson/worker and consumer have there own particular circumstances to contend with. That's a given in economics in case you haven't clicked to it yet.
You really are a tiresome twat. In view of the post I happened to be responding to, the comment was reasonable.
What the issue is and what everyone seems to understand but you is; "Given all those considerations, if penalty rates are abolished tomorrow will the
overall effect in this vast economy be to result in more people being employed or not".
I didn't answer that. I responded to the supposition stated by the previous contributor. End of story.
Now to spare you the trouble of again reminding us that its not that simple why don't you just tell us what you think the
overall result will be (i) overall, it will result in more jobs (ii) overall it will result in less jobs (iii) overall it will remain the same or (iv) you just don't know the answer.
Why should I. I've already stated the complexities of the situation. You me or anyone else on this forum does not know without proper analysis. You can only guess. I choose not to guess and state the reasons why.
You see when you tell us its not that simple and then put on the table general economic principles paired off with labored scenarios (such as charging $1000 for a cup of coffee) all leading to the logically strained conclusion that abolishing penalty rates will result in more jobs, one cant help but conclude this guy knows sh!t and is in fact advocating the abolition of penalty rates.
I made no such projection. I did however, allude to the possibility given the right conditions. If you want to believe they don't exist, then good for you.
So I tell you what Go ahead and clear it up for us. I've set out the usual 4 options above for you.
Why ? I don't need instructions from Sparty to add to the forum. The four options are useless anyway because it would require a sectorial analysis.