I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

...how is any of that relevant to anything under discussion, beyond the keyword “india”?

India, and every other third world country, has their (many) problems, but nonetheless, the economy of those living on a dime is far superior to whatever exists in the US.

Minimum wage, as all regulation does, strangles such poor economies (there must be an official term for this; anyone know it?) by virtue of creating a hard line where things simply cease to exist, be it half-functional cars, drugs, housing, wage, etc. Anyone above the line is better off (all options are now guaranteed to be at least decent), and anyone below simply has no options.

Whether we really want this depends on the context and subjects (drugs, banks are high-return targets for regulation; cars and wage perhaps less so), but that regulation deletes a market, by-design, should always be a part of the consideration, though it rarely seems to be.

When 10 people own as much as half the population, there's definitely a lot wrong with society.

It's perhaps worth considering that most companies might not replicate that structure internally. Given the numbers above, this strikes me as good reason to suspect that the approach you describe - while definitely a good idea to promote equality! - might not have the the numerical outputs you expect.

>Because if I had responded to everything you had said, I would have had to have written an essay.

As far as I can tell, you seem to have instead opted to respond to nothing I said, in the previous post...

>Your view on minimum wage and absolute deregulation is so radical that only the anarchist party is likely to share your views.

Is it really..? It seemed like an obvious thing to me: creating a glass floor traps people underneath it, but (ideally) makes life better for those above it. Glass ceilings are trivially accepted — and ceiling is just a floor to the guy above it. Is it so radical to apply it where the people above aren’t in the top 10%?

Also I’m not arguing absolute deregulation — I’m arguing that regulation inherently removes a subset of the market, and this should be accounted for. It might be worth it, it might not be. But its certainly not without consequence.

That, and that the extremely poor can live a better and more complete lifestyle in other countries than whats found in the US.

>The economics term you are searching for is probably a “deadweight loss”. In theory, when a $1/pack tax is introduced on cigarettes, there is a decrease in the volume of cigarettes packs sold

This doesn’t seem to be exactly what I’m getting at; I’m trying to refer to the idea that, when certain quality controls are globally enforced, the base cost goes up, and those who relied on lower costs can no longer be served. These barriers always existed — there’s a minimum cost to doing anything, really — but that hard-line bar has been raised. And that means the chunk of market that once existed inbetween the previous minimum and the new minimum... vanishes.

>Just because banks are required to only safeguard 10% or more of their account holder’s balance doesn’t mean banks are unprofitable and have ceased to exist.

I’m not suggesting it would remove the entire market of a given domain (I mean, regulation can, but usually doesn’t, and doesn’t strive to) but rather, it removes certain previously available options for banks which perhaps reached a sector that is now no longer served. That is, some people were not well off enough to afford such a safegaurd; the equilibrium shifts, along with the bare minimum required to enroll. Where previously “shithole” banks could serve that population, now a void exists (perhaps replaced by something worse, or better, or nothing at all).

But banks that cheat are probably globally good to regulate out of existence. Banks that safegaurd 10% vs 12% perhaps less obvious. But if 12% drives up the cost significantly, then some group of people are being pushed out.

Loan sharks don’t find borrowers because of a wealth of viable alternatives... they’re all thats left when you’ve exhausted all better options. The higher the minimum bar, the more likely someone ends up in such a state.