Yes. What part of it isn’t correct?
Shit bro.
Leaving aside some of the assumptions you treat as fact such as q(l), explain to me how you maximize your profit by setting the derivative equal to 0 - humor me and show me how the math works by maximizing y here: y=x^2
2 Likes
We are actually looking for another employee haha
1 Like
How many units of the product you make depends on how many hours the laborer works. The more he works the more he makes. That’s not controversial.
Oh sorry, I forgot to explain what profit curves look like. They don’t look like y=x^2
The curve on the bottom in this picture is a function of of the quantity produced. The equation I used is the same, except I used L instead of Q. I assume labor is the only input (not capital).
2 Likes
Both the economy and the US car market collapsed at that time. The only things that flourished in the 70s was crime, stagflation, and single motherhood numbers.
3 Likes
It was important for me when starting a business that I treat my employees fairly. For example, I’ve interviewed people and I always let them know if they got the job not in a timely manner and provide some feedback when appropriate. So many firms jerk around people and never bother to even respond back.
I don’t have a set 9-5 hour set. You come when we need work done, you leave if there’s nothing to do. I don’t need to see that you are sitting there from 9-5 looking like you are doing work. It’s a stupid measure of productivity used by useless net negative middle management.
Are we getting the work done? If not, why not. Do we need more help, can I give you a better way to succeed?
6 Likes
Those charts aren’t using the same assumptions you laid out, so now you’re using a curve with assumptions that aren’t accounted for in your ‘proof’. That’s not the way it works.
At least you swapped charts out from the one you initially posted, which showed profits going back down as staff expenditures increase, undercutting your point. It’s almost like different simplified models of profit are addressing different things and have different inputs and can’t be generally applied like you tried to do. 
Your ‘proof’, as you lay it out, says the units produced per hour is wages/price… it’s just so stupid… So if you have someone making 10 widgets an hour, and you want 100 widgets per hour, you just have to pay them 10x more, or lower your price to 1/10. Haha! Go run a business on that principle.
1 Like
The proof works even if you maximize profit with respect to Q (like in the graph) instead of L. It’ll take a longer time. This Wikipedia article has a reference to the original Bates proof.
That wouldn’t undercut my point. Because profits go back down, you have to find the point where it’s the highest.
That undercuts your point. Your y=x^2 means there is no global optimal, which means there is no profit maximization point, which doesn’t reflect any reality.
The reason I swapped the chart is because I wasn’t sure if “staff expenditure” and wages were the same thing, so I better use something else.
I’ll forgive you since you’ve demonstrated you don’t know anything about economic theory.
Under competition, a firm doesn’t choose the price.
2 Likes
Go back and look at your equation.
That was to show you your math is way oversimplified.
Ha. That chart was based on a theory where profits of firms isn’t maximized.
What intro class are you taking? 
But even if we allow your silly statement to stand, just go ahead and raise wages 10x to get 10x more product! Ha.
1 Like
Can you pm me the details so I can see if its a good fit?
1 Like
Are you willing to relocate to the UK?
1 Like
That would depend on a lot of things, i would be open to it if the offer is good. To note, I’m a us citizen so I’d probably need visa sponsorship.
We are not sponsoring anyone at this point. It’s a small start up and we are looking for locals.
1 Like
Yea it wouldn’t be cost effective in that case, I assumed it was in Taiwan cz forumosa haha. Best of luck to your ventures though!
2 Likes
Couple questions.
For any job except (perhaps) an assembly line worker, do you think there might be a more complex relationship between wage and hourly productivity?
I agree. What makes you think they are actually maximizing their profits, or even measuring productivity correctly?
Yes. Notice in the equation, there is no functional form.
Q=F(L)
If you look online, there are different production functions. Some look like Q=L^2-L.
Most of them have capital in the mix in addition to labor, like Q=AK^2*L^2.
I took capital out of the relationship for simplicity purposes.
I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly. I don’t think Taiwanese laobans are maximizing profits.
1 Like
So your basic point is that (many) Taiwanese businesses would make more money if they paid people more? If so, I think that’s sort of true, but it assumes they would know what to do with those higher-paid people even if they were willing to hire them. I’m not sure most of them do.
I don’t really have anything to say about the math, not being much of a math person, but it seems to me that you’re saying “pay people according to their value to the business”. I’m not sure anyone disagrees with that, but its utility seems limited to me. For many jobs it’s near-impossible to measure how much value any given person brings.
They’re maybe not maximizing profits in an academic way but to my personal experience they’re cutting costs and try to squeeze out every last ntd wherever possible. Often enough to their own disadvantage in the long run.
1 Like
You could be saying either of two things:
- Bosses at places like 7-11 would not know how to get more out of their workers by paying them more.
- There is no demand for more skilled labor.
Yes, they want to maximize profit but they’re not doing it.
I feel that cutting costs might just be the most straightforward, most simple and least risky way to maximize profit on the short term. I mean every fool can try to do that and will be “successful” immediately.
All other ways of maximizing profit (trying to increase revenue by either increasing market share or prices) require taking more risk and more planning. And they certainly take longer to show effect.
All just thinking about the short-term, not the long-term as you say. So the question, in my opinion, is more why the bosses all seem to be oriented much more on short-term profit than long-term profit.
2 Likes