3 ms·
Your TV & other appliances all used a lot more electricity to get the same job done, even if the screen or icebox was smaller. Your car got worse fuel economy a
by ip26 8y ago
Your TV & other appliances all used a lot more electricity to get the same job done, even if the screen or icebox was smaller. Your car got worse fuel economy and didn't last to 100k miles. Your house used a lot more wood/gas/oil/electricity to heat.
A big part of why we have more is social & technical progress. We get more for our money.
I do think your parent's question is an interesting one- thorny, but it's not ridiculous to wonder if doubling the work force eventually gnaws away at compensation for the same work. (The natural next question is, well did the demand for labor grow to match, stay constant, or somewhere in between? Did the pie grow and we're all wealthier for it, or are twice as many people now fighting over the same pie?)
- Barrin92 8y agoThere seems to be an error in that argument. If you shrink your workforce holding productivity equal, then labour becomes more expensive and wages and prices are going to be pushed, i.e. you just get inflation. A larger labour force means more competition in wages, but it also increases supply so this shouldn't have any effect. If this wasn't true, then you could reduce inequality simply by artificially restricting the supply of labour, which I don't think has ever occurred.