If a general increase in wages inevitably is passed onto the costumer...

If a firm's customers aren't only workers, then how could passing on all the wage increase into a proportional price increase with the same quantities bought completely nullify the increase for the working class?

The market is a little more complex than that. It really depends on what a business is capable of doing. Certain companies would just have to deal with the increase. While others have the ability move overseas, increase prices or invest in machines. This means that minimum wage workers only get a percentile of the actual wage increase. Some get fired and don't get anything at all. Those with slightly higher wages than the minimum will feel a decrease in spending power. While some might get screwed, there would probably be a net increase in spending power overall. So wanting to increase the minimum wage would generally be a good thing for minimum wage workers, unless if you know that you are expendable.

Increasing. But I'm not talking about minimum wage, I'm talking about a general increase in all wages, not just the bottom-tier wages.

But if increasing the wages would cut into their profits, then it seems like they only thing they could do would be to pass it off entirely onto the costumer, make their present workers more efficient, or downsize. In general it doesn't seem like a net gain.

So why did they not believe it?

I know that, but unions tend to be a major part of Leftism and part of the draw of unions is higher wages.
I've never seen one of these threads, and I'm not an ancap, just a Leftist trying to figure out an answer to an argument I've been told.

Other than specialized industries, the customers will almost always been proles, so there might be a slight gain from individuals without an increased wage.

Unions should educate entrepreneurs that a fall in wages can't possibly increase profits, as the fall in wages is immediately passed on to the customers…

As everybody who is serious about the science of economics knows, a rise in wages is immediately passed on; the generalized insight is that a rise or fall in prices of anything is immediately passed on, so prices have no effect on anything that happens whatsoever.

everyone's real wages can increase if productivity increases

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch01.htm

Can a nigga get a wage increase?

Only if you vote for hillary, remember, she is the real left, Holla Forums are just red fascists.

If he is more competitive than the average of his coworkers, if there is no other jobless man starving on the street that could do the same thing for less money, theoretically he could get a raise.
Unless he is a complete classcuck, kinda like pic related

I have an Egyptian co-worker who is pretty much like the girl in the pic and thinks the same way. Works 80ish hours a week. I don't think she is actually an ideological classcuck though. I think that if she didn't believe that due to this overworking which she has to do anyways to support her kids made her someone with more grit and integrity than most, she wouldn't be able to live with herself

Really I think it's a defense mechanism and not like purposeful ideology

cuck

Only under the assumption that wages are 100% of costs. If wages are 50% of costs than doubling, for instance, means that pay goes up to 200% while goods and services go up to 150%, meaning your buying power effectively goes up by… A third I think it comes out to? And the lower a percentage of costs payroll is the more of your wage increase you keep.

My understanding is that the current philosophy is a company where payroll is more than 10% of costs is A Badly Run Company, up to 20% in select industries: with the same doubled wages that's gonna be like what, a 80-something percent increase in buying power.

Marx adresses excactely this question in Value, Price and Profit.

This needs to be an image macro tbqh. Something that can be rapidly posted to refute bullshit ancap arguments every time they spam their shitty low effort troll threads.

Wow, capitalism sure is filled with sociopaths.
Even I can tell, and I'm essentially just a dog in a humans body.

That makes sense, but if I'm thinking of it correctly, the real wages increase and the worker can now buy more, yet the rate of profit remains the same while the economy in general would expand. This seems illogical and also like a net gain for everyone involved.

You could say that about involuntary unemployment as well. Is is only a net gain for every class under the unrealistic assumption that the relations between the classes stay frozen, even though the working class gets more power.

In fairness, I remembered wrong, it's actually 20-30%

False.

First first assumption is false. Collective bargaining gets the workers higher wages. These costs have to be paid by something. Since the capitalist cannot increase price of products due to competition with other firms. This means that these costs are incurred on the capitalists own profits. They also cannot raise prices because then the consumers who havent gotten a wage increase cant afford the products.
Only when all the workers in the entire economy do collective bargaining to the same power (which requires a completely isolated economy with no overseas and whatnot, a sterile model that isnt real), then all the wages have increased, allowing the capitalists to slowly raise the prices, which means that the workers end up with the same purchasing power as before, assuming no technological development or changes in economic distribution (sterile models). Income is higher and prices rose with them. This is called inflation. Inflation is limited by the amount of currency available in society.
But in reality there is no sterile model, and any technological advancement is not going to be paid to the workers, but profit the capitalists. Collective bargaining is demanding an increase in real wages in accordance to the increase of technological advancement, or more to get from of the profits the capitalists are keeping.

Also check my new oc.

How is there any difference of power? The wages are a higher percent of the costs but now the economy is bigger.

But if higher wages aren't passed onto the customer, why are unionized businesses known for having higher prices than non-unionized?

There is some flexibility in prices that businesses can ask. Theres more to competition than just prices, its also service, quality, warrenties, trustability and marketing.

NEIN. You should read Value, Price, and Profit. Or even just what is quoted in this thread.

Do you actually really know that, and how?

Give me some reason why my supposedly sterile model to prove why the reasoning of capitalists is wrong exactly because it is a sterile mode is wrong.

From what I've been told, unionized businesses in the North have much higher prices than the ones in the South US. But it's possible it has less to do with unions and more to do with costs of living and standard wages in the region.

Speaking of unions, I've heard a lot of people bitching about how shitty workers unionized workers are, as they can't effectively be fired; either they work badly/slowly or provide terrible customer service. Is there much truth to this, and if so, is this an inevitable outcome of unionization or just the current business unions?

thats a nice factory drawing im taking it

Value, Price and Profit is not some big book, it is a transcript of a speech, a speech that is entirely about OP's question. You should read it.

That just means they won't work 12 hours a day for 8 hours' pay and won't get on their knees for porky at every possible turn.