3 ms·
Labor costs are irrelevant, as cheap labor also means cheap labor for making machines. It was uneconomical, and caused economic turmoil even in Britain, there w
by Anotheroneagain 2y ago
Labor costs are irrelevant, as cheap labor also means cheap labor for making machines. It was uneconomical, and caused economic turmoil even in Britain, there were much more arduous tasks that needed to be mechanized such as threshing, which took up a massive amount of labor that could have been freed instead. The Old regime in France was growing steadily. GDP per capita is a stupid metric, GDP per manhour would make much more sense.
- gumby 2y ago> GDP per manhour would make much more sense And is why labor productivity is used as a comparator. The question, still completely applicable today, is the trade off between cost of capital and cost of labor. Will your cap ex ultimately cuts your op ex? Another key invention there is the joint stock limited corporation, developed for shipping voyages but allowing a new mechanism for financing cap ex.
- Anotheroneagain 2y agoThe problem with GDP per capita is that it encourages marginal work. Let's say you can do all you need in four hours. Then you spend another 36 hours on some bullshit of marginal value because hey, GDP got higher. GDP per manhour would discourage such low value work. If it's necessary its price will rise until it gets worth doing.