4 ms·

This is the key point that I wish people understood. From an economic standpoint, articles like this one are really just arguing that the supply and demand in s

This is the key point that I wish people understood. From an economic standpoint, articles like this one are really just arguing that the supply and demand in several different markets should be lumped together and aggregated. the claim is that these different markets aren't actually selling a different product; so there is something like Marx's labor theory of value going on or something. But it just seems dubious. It's different if you are arguing that they will inevitably merge. But if you're arguing that we should artificially merge them, that doesn't make a terribly large amount of sense to me. Or that we should not merge them but we should just act irrationally in a market to be consistent with our actions in another market, again, that sounds like people being excessively idealistic.

cheph 6y ago
> This is the key point that I wish people understood. From an economic standpoint, articles like this one are really just arguing that the supply and demand in several different markets should be lumped together and aggregated. No, it is not. This article is arguing the opposite. The article is arguing that you should ignore the fact that the labour market changes and still demand that you get market rates for some arbitrary other market which is no longer the market that you are operating in. If this article was arguing we should artificially merge all markets they would not have a problem with getting a pay cut when the market becomes the whole of US instead of SV.