View Single Post
  #12   ^
Old Mon, May-14-18, 06:08
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

There's another possible solution. Mandate higher salaries for sugar employees.

The way money works is by an act of Law. I won't go too deep here but the point is that the value of currency is determined by both Law-enacted fixed prices for certain essentials like milk and butter (here in Canada at least), and Law-enacted minimum wages (also here in Canada at least). Various representative associations also mandate minimum wages like Comite Paritaire Des Employes D'edifices Public (people who clean and maintain public places, that kind of thing) here in Quebec.

And, mandate higher retail/gross prices for resources specifically in the context of production, distribution, transport. For example, fuel for machinery used in production of sugar. Rental of this machinery. Parts, and so forth. Electricity for processing factory.

With salaries, if we accept the premise that sugar is bad for us, it does two good things, not just one. Besides obvious first-level benefit for employees, a subsequent effect of increased salaries for a pool of employees is increased local economic activity where these employees reside. With resources, it also does two good things, as the higher costs drives improvements in efficiency, which then transfers to other similar productions. One possible improvement is electric machinery and transport vehicles (as a side note, Tesla recently unveiled an electric semi), which then benefits elsewhere (pollutants, noise, etc).

This must be done in direct (like minimum wage, not tax) salary control, and can be done in direct (like fixed essentials retail prices, not tax) and/or indirect cost (tax) control.

A priori, lower consumption of a thing results in lower income for whomever produces that thing. As a producer faced with this, I'd choose the most profitable option, if profit is possible. As a population faced with this (both as consumers of the thing, and employees of those producers), I'd choose the greatest number of benefits rather than the greatest single benefit. If somebody's gonna profit from this, I'd prefer the greatest number of people.
Reply With Quote