3 ms·
RE your second argument: population increases have always been happening, so why would it only be from the 70s that it would finally depress wage growth?
by rtpg 9y ago
RE your second argument: population increases have always been happening, so why would it only be from the 70s that it would finally depress wage growth?
- bonzini 9y agoExponential growth won't last forever. Pretty much everything that looks exponential is actually logistic. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
- mrep 9y agoEh, I don't know about that (at least on time frames of a typical human lifespan). For long term things, maybe. Do you have any good reads on that relationship?
- bonzini 9y agoSure, the time frame will vary. But exponential economic growth started much early than the '70s, we just happen to be around when the logistic curve starts to slow down (for population too).
- lsc 9y agoYup, that's why I was saying that it's a much weaker argument, because it is a much weaker argument. If I was going to add more evidence for that argument, I would point out that women were added to the workforce at a rate that is greater than what population growth usually is, but certainly, there is a good case to be made that adding more workers doesn't always push down wages.