3 ms·

> This was very much unlike the post-war period, where US industry was running on borrowed time, making increasingly burdensome concessions to unions that led t

> This was very much unlike the post-war period, where US industry was running on borrowed time, making increasingly burdensome concessions to unions that led to huge bankruptcies and retrenchment in the 1970s in many industries. You mean the adjustment from the post-war period of 1945-1975? Just like the one you referenced from 1870-1900? The post-war boom in wages here, that you can see many times in history, occurs due to demographics. You are essentially arguing to the contrary of your point, that large-scale wage increases for average people translate to better outcomes for all. Higher velocity of money, more innovation. You do realize that society as a whole is a large union, correct? And if suddenly there are far less people for work, then it has the same effect as a group holding out for higher wages? That is functionally what a strike is; it's as if a large portion of the young population is all striking at once (they're in fact dead). > massive deadweight loss from greater unrealized production/earnings And what does this deadweight loss thing mean exactly... coming from someone who studied economics? This is completely made up, more casual libertarian groupthink from people who got rich and conveniently stop believing in society. Can we stay grounded on this board please?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>You mean the adjustment from the post-war period of 1945-1975? Just like the one you referenced from 1870-1900? I just explained that the 1945-1975 period was not the same as the 1870-1900 period. The latter was associated with massive gains in the market position of US industry. The former was associated with the degradation of the market position of major US industrial firms, making those wage gains unsustainable. >>The post-war boom in wages here, that you can see many times in history, occurs due to demographics. Why would demographics cause the post-war boom? I see you reference death ("they're in fact dead"), which I take to mean you are implying that WW2 caused a large enough decline in the working age population so as to explain the large post-war wage gains, but 420,000 military deaths out of a total US population of 139 million in 1945, cannot explain the magnitude of wage growth in the post-war period. >>And what does this deadweight loss thing mean exactly... coming from someone who studied economics? This is the Wikipedia page defining the term if you're unfamiliar with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss It's a basic economics term, and has nothing to do with "casual libertarian groupthink". Maybe you should assume good faith and debate on the merits of the arguments, instead of caricaturing me as a member of some group of libertarians "who got rich and conveniently stop believing in society". These kinds of comments are NOT grounded.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>You mean the adjustment from the post-war period of 1945-1975? Just like the one you referenced from 1870-1900? I just explained that the 1945-1975 period was not the same as the 1870-1900 period. The latter was associated with massive gains in the market position of US industry. The former was associated with the degradation of the market position of major US industrial firms, making those wage gains unsustainable. >>The post-war boom in wages here, that you can see many times in history, occurs due to demographics. Why would demographics cause the post-war boom? I see you reference death ("they're in fact dead"), which I take to mean you are implying that WW2 caused a large enough decline in the working age population so as to explain the large post-war wage gains, but 420,000 military deaths out of a total US population of 139 million in 1945, cannot explain the magnitude of wage growth in the post-war period. >>And what does this deadweight loss thing mean exactly... coming from someone who studied economics? This is the Wikipedia page defining the term if you're unfamiliar with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss It's a basic economics term, and has nothing to do with "casual libertarian groupthink". Maybe you should assume good faith and debate on the merits of the arguments, instead of caricaturing me as a member of some group of libertarians "who got rich and conveniently stop believing in society". These kinds of comments are NOT grounded.