6 ms·

It is hard believe so many people still don’t “get it”. You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average w

It is hard believe so many people still don’t “get it”. You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff.

milquetoastaf 8y ago
You can if the profits are redistributed to the workforce and not just captured by the leadership / elite. There's more people working than ever. Profits are higher than ever. Yet, wages are stagnating. Where did the money go?
snikeris 8y ago
Hmm...how about: inflate the supply of labor, price of goods goes down and better goods are invented, then average working stiff benefits when buying these goods? I understand your point that the average working stiff might experience wage loss or lose their job altogether, but I'm not sure you're considering the benefits to consumers, which is another role of the average working stiff.
- bdcs 8y ago
  Wages and salaries (and, perhaps, prices) would not go down. Your argument and the parent of it, is falling for the lump of labor fallacy. By adding supply of labor, the demand for labor goes up as well. It is actually well-agreed on by economists, but I see many smart people, on the left and right, get it wrong. I implore you both to read and listen about it (google/"lump of labor").
- rileyphone 8y ago
  That's the entire point of the real wages statistic: the price of goods has remained relatively pinned to wages since that point.
staplers 8y ago
There must be some people out there earning more wages on the 10x increase in stock prices, investments..
joshe 8y ago
This is perfect, this is exactly what I'm arguing against! Does this statement also seem true? "It is hard to believe so many * economists * don't "get it". You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff." What do we think economists are doing with all their data sets and papers and conferences and stuff?
- soared 8y ago
  See climate science, anti-vax, etc for the answer. Some significant percent of people will disagree with experts no matter what.
- mberning 8y ago
  Opinions of economists vary. But neverminding that, if swelling the labor supply was so incredibly beneficial to the economy we would not be $21 trillion in debt and 40% of the population unable to muster $400 for an emergency. Give me a break.
  - solveit 8y ago
    First, it's unclear whether the debt is actually a bad thing. Note debts for countries don't work like debts for individuals, especially if said country controls the world's reserve currency. Second, the idea that immigrants and women getting jobs is a major factor in 40% of Americans not having significant savings is so completely ungrounded in reality or even popular thought as to make me wonder if you're being deliberately dishonest.
conanbatt 8y ago
What is hard to believe is that the mercantilist mindset has been vanquished 200 years ago, and you still need to instruct adults into why it doesn't work over and over again.

It is hard believe so many people still don’t “get it”. You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff.

milquetoastaf 8y ago

You can if the profits are redistributed to the workforce and not just captured by the leadership / elite. There's more people working than ever. Profits are higher than ever. Yet, wages are stagnating. Where did the money go?

snikeris 8y ago

Hmm...how about: inflate the supply of labor, price of goods goes down and better goods are invented, then average working stiff benefits when buying these goods? I understand your point that the average working stiff might experience wage loss or lose their job altogether, but I'm not sure you're considering the benefits to consumers, which is another role of the average working stiff.

bdcs 8y ago
Wages and salaries (and, perhaps, prices) would not go down. Your argument and the parent of it, is falling for the lump of labor fallacy. By adding supply of labor, the demand for labor goes up as well. It is actually well-agreed on by economists, but I see many smart people, on the left and right, get it wrong. I implore you both to read and listen about it (google/"lump of labor").
rileyphone 8y ago
That's the entire point of the real wages statistic: the price of goods has remained relatively pinned to wages since that point.

staplers 8y ago

There must be some people out there earning more wages on the 10x increase in stock prices, investments..

joshe 8y ago

This is perfect, this is exactly what I'm arguing against! Does this statement also seem true? "It is hard to believe so many * economists * don't "get it". You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff." What do we think economists are doing with all their data sets and papers and conferences and stuff?

soared 8y ago
See climate science, anti-vax, etc for the answer. Some significant percent of people will disagree with experts no matter what.
mberning 8y ago
Opinions of economists vary. But neverminding that, if swelling the labor supply was so incredibly beneficial to the economy we would not be $21 trillion in debt and 40% of the population unable to muster $400 for an emergency. Give me a break.
- solveit 8y ago
  First, it's unclear whether the debt is actually a bad thing. Note debts for countries don't work like debts for individuals, especially if said country controls the world's reserve currency. Second, the idea that immigrants and women getting jobs is a major factor in 40% of Americans not having significant savings is so completely ungrounded in reality or even popular thought as to make me wonder if you're being deliberately dishonest.

conanbatt 8y ago

What is hard to believe is that the mercantilist mindset has been vanquished 200 years ago, and you still need to instruct adults into why it doesn't work over and over again.