9 ms·
> That's a political statement, not a law of nature. That's the way it works in our system, which finds wages through supply and demand, which is a law of natu
by gridlockd 6y ago
> That's a political statement, not a law of nature.
That's the way it works in our system, which finds wages through supply and demand, which is a law of nature. You may nitpick and find a couple of salaries or other types of income that are not priced in this way, but it is generally true for the average person.
Whether that system is the best system is indeed a political question, but that's besides the point.
> Moving the mean of a distribution to "less than 20% higher" than the median is huge!
Perhaps, but it's nowhere near the 100% change that the article promises.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago>That's the way it works in our system, which finds wages through supply and demand, which is a law of nature. Is this 8th grade economics? Consider a nation that has strong tariffs on imported goods. Consider another nation that has major obstacles to the investment of foreign capital, and lots of cheap labor. Now consider a political campaign (it doesn't look a campaign, but it is) to remove the tariffs and allow capital to move freely from the first nation to the second. Result: dramatic changes in the first nation's wages, at least for work that gets moved to the second country. Remind me again which law(s) of nature is involved here.
- gridlockd 6y agoNone of this contradicts what I said. In your example, labor supply for the first country has effectively increased while demand has not. In effect, wages must fall in that country. However, there is now increased demand on that cheaper labor, so those wages must rise, given a limited supply.