3 ms·

Curios claim in the article: > High wages come from high productivity, which, I think is patently false. Wages are set by supply and demand, same as anythin

by rhelz 2y ago

Curios claim in the article: > High wages come from high productivity, which, I think is patently false. Wages are set by supply and demand, same as anything else. High wages incent increases in productivity, not the other way around. Why were wages not at substance levels in Briton on the eve of the industrial revolution? What drove up the demand for workers?

pixl97 2y ago
Was Briton not a large naval power by that point in their history already?
astrange 2y ago
> Wages are set by supply and demand, same as anything else. This is true for a one-time negotiation, but over time high productivity is necessary to sustain the high wages, or else the market will cease to clear. (that is, the workers will get laid off or the business will close)
- rhelz 2y ago
  High productivity is certainly necessary for high wages. But this makes the original article's point even more mysterious: if the workers had high productivity before the industrial revolution, that high productivity was not caused by the industrial revolution: so what caused it? And high-productivity is certainly no guarantee of high wages. E.g. mothers arguably produce everything, but that's not a waged job at all. So what was it which was propping up workers wages in pre-industrial England? What was preventing employers from eroding workers wages using the same tactics which, say, software companies are eroding engineering wages? w.g. making unnecessary layoffs, firing older workers and replacing them with younger workers, negotiating tacit anti-poaching agreements, etc? What were they doing right that we are doing wrong :-)
  - astrange 2y ago
    > And high-productivity is certainly no guarantee of high wages. E.g. mothers arguably produce everything, but that's not a waged job at all. Productivity means work over time. Being a mom is low productivity because you can (mostly) only do one at a time.
    - rhelz 2y ago
      Productivity is not just work over time--its how much value you produce per unit of time. Mothers produce all value. Without them, nothing would have any value at all.

by rhelz 2y ago

pixl97 2y ago

Was Briton not a large naval power by that point in their history already?

astrange 2y ago

> Wages are set by supply and demand, same as anything else. This is true for a one-time negotiation, but over time high productivity is necessary to sustain the high wages, or else the market will cease to clear. (that is, the workers will get laid off or the business will close)

rhelz 2y ago
High productivity is certainly necessary for high wages. But this makes the original article's point even more mysterious: if the workers had high productivity before the industrial revolution, that high productivity was not caused by the industrial revolution: so what caused it? And high-productivity is certainly no guarantee of high wages. E.g. mothers arguably produce everything, but that's not a waged job at all. So what was it which was propping up workers wages in pre-industrial England? What was preventing employers from eroding workers wages using the same tactics which, say, software companies are eroding engineering wages? w.g. making unnecessary layoffs, firing older workers and replacing them with younger workers, negotiating tacit anti-poaching agreements, etc? What were they doing right that we are doing wrong :-)
- astrange 2y ago
  > And high-productivity is certainly no guarantee of high wages. E.g. mothers arguably produce everything, but that's not a waged job at all. Productivity means work over time. Being a mom is low productivity because you can (mostly) only do one at a time.
  - rhelz 2y ago
    Productivity is not just work over time--its how much value you produce per unit of time. Mothers produce all value. Without them, nothing would have any value at all.