3 ms·

> 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 si

by 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...

by 49531 7y ago

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...