←back to thread

390 points AndrewDucker | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
wonjohnchoi ◴[] No.21830642[source]
Samsung is responsible for a large portion of GDP in Korea. Arguably, Samsung has contributed a lot to Korea's "Miracle on the Han River".

With Korea's current progressive "Moon's" government, Korea is going through a lot of changes (higher minimum wage, a lot of focus on gender equality, stronger labor union, shorter work hours, stronger punishment for corruptions within companies, etc), and traditional "chaebol" companies are having trouble adapting to some of these changes. There are also a lot of eyeballs on past and current shady behaviors by "chaebol" companies. As one of the biggest "chaebol" companies, Samsung is also being affected by the changes, and this article shows one of them.

One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy.

replies(5): >>21830732 #>>21830948 #>>21831449 #>>21831740 #>>21834508 #
hardwaresofton ◴[] No.21831449[source]
> One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy.

Does GDP matter if a large segment of the population is miserable? Samsung's ability to compete internationally is important but I'd rank that as a second to the health and happiness of it's populace.

> higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing

I don't quite buy this -- higher minimum wages might indeed increase costs for small shops, but this is a shallow assessment:

- A clearer definition of "small shop" is needed -- most really small shops are run by the owner/owner's family, no? If this is not the case, then I'd argue that businesses that are dependent on not paying workers a living wage should not exist (if Korea's people wish it so).

- Higher wages usually means more money spent on goods for all but the upper echelon of the population who may or may not be more interested in amassing wealth for whatever reason

replies(4): >>21831650 #>>21831764 #>>21832988 #>>21835388 #
manigandham ◴[] No.21831764[source]
There's no such thing as a "living wage". It's a political talking point and you can set the line wherever you want.

Higher min. wage increases costs and disproportionately affects smaller companies, leading to closures in every region, country, state and city where it happens. This is also why giant corporations like Walmart even support it since it clears out small local store competition.

replies(3): >>21831787 #>>21831812 #>>21832403 #
1. eirini1 ◴[] No.21832403[source]
I always found this such a weak argument. A small store deals with inflation all the time - for the rent it pays for the shop, the products it buys and services it employs. Surely wages as well then? If, even with increased consumer spending being the result of increased minimum wages the small store cannot turn a profit anymore then it means that their business model is simply no longer up to date with modern times.
replies(1): >>21832616 #
2. manigandham ◴[] No.21832616[source]
Where's all this increased consumer spending coming from? This isn't guaranteed and rarely happens, and definitely doesn't go straight back to those businesses.

Employees are the biggest cost, and wages when multiplied by benefits and taxes can have an outsized impact over fixed costs like rent. Sure a business might not fire everyone, but it might start removing some shifts or move some employees to part-time instead. These little changes add up.

The greater point is that it's easy to say "the business model is no longer up to date" when it doesn't affect you. It's much different when your wages go to 0 instead because of other people who think they know better than you about what you need.