4 ms·
>The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others. This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably fals
by dexen 7y ago
>The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others.
This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably false in at least two ways. With an open system, you can conceivably have growth for both sides of the market (profit and wages).
For one, we are extracting energy and resources from nature, and the supply - at least of energy - is effectively unlimited. Longer term we can also mine the resources from outer space, which again is effectively unlimited. Granted, there are constraints on how quickly we can build out the gathering infrastructure for either, but there is no hard cap. Moreover, with the improvements in efficiency (economies and environmentalism go hand in hand here) we're reducing waste and reusing a lot resources and energy that would've previously been wasted, again moving the needle away from resource limitation and towards open-like system.
For another, the discussion is implicitly about USA (and similar case can be made for EU), meanwhile there's well known trade imbalance with goods purchased from abroad. Getting close to, or at, the point of balance is feasible; the current imbalance is result of difference in economical conditions and governmental policy.
The goods imported from abroad are specifically the ones that are mass-manufactured, which is where the wage laborers gets their wages from. The suppressed demand for local manufacturing suppresses wages of workers within USA (similarly, within EU).
Effectively we have outsourced the growth of wages to other countries. Making the source countries richer obviously has important benefits (stabilizing them politically, long term making them interested in clean environment, etc.), but it is a policy choice that needs to be balanced with in-country prosperity none the less.
And then there's the matter of changes in supply of workers, but that's a whole different subject for another day.
All in all, sure, reform capitalism: improve the trade balance, let the wages recover due to the demand that's already present, just supplied for from elsewhere.
- 49531 7y ago> This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably false in at least two ways. With an open system, you can conceivably have growth for both sides of the market (profit and wages). Unless you're proposing we print money, it is a closed system. There is a relatively finite amount of money, growth, and consumption in any economy. We've seen over the last 40 years that without concerted effort on the side of the working class, the owning class will keep and push wages low while keeping the gains of growth to themselves. It's well known that efficiency has increased while wages have barely grown. No one is going to willingly share their profit with you, especially the lower you are in your income / skill level. That's why the average McDonalds employee in the US creates about $70,000/yr in profit and receives on average $18,000/yr.
- dexen 7y ago>Unless you're proposing we print money Yes of course; with a quarterly growth GDP currently around 3%[1], we should and indeed do "print" money at related rate. (again, with the assumption we're discussing USA here). However my argument hinges on two other aspects: the system is open in regard to energy gathering and resource gathering. The system (again, assuming we're discussing USA) is also open in regard to outside trade - USA can't completely control the policy and state of economy of trade partners. Are you proposing we close up the borders and/or cap energy & resource extraction & waste recovery? >without concerted effort on the side of the working class, the owning class will keep and push wages low while keeping the gains of growth to themselves A salient observation. >It's well known that efficiency has increased while wages have barely grown. It is also well known the pool of labor supply has grown significantly. I propose we slow down the supply of labor a bit, to help the price of labor go up naturally, without any forceful methods. Care to join me on this quest? It works well for every segment of work market where it's implemented: doctors, lawyers, licensed engineers, you name it. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-grew-3-2-in-the-first-quarter/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-grew-3-2-in-the-first-qu...