4 ms·
You've made a toy model of human economic activity and while I have no doubt you are internally consistent about the rules in your model, that model has no bear
by ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
You've made a toy model of human economic activity and while I have no doubt you are internally consistent about the rules in your model, that model has no bearing on how human society and economic activity actually work.
e.g. In real life, 1 blue collar worker does not get promoted to a white collar job for every 1000 blue collar workers that enter the labor pool after them.
- worstspotgain 2y agoIn real life, that's actually how the dust settles. The implications of how the economy operates are not on written on a "log of promotions" anywhere. Rather, the system of wages and prices adjusts as needed until people are employed consistently with production functions. If the functions imply we don't need 1100 middle managers, people change jobs and make different education decisions until there are ~1000. There are attritions and transaction costs in the short term, but they cancel out in the medium run. I understand this is inconveniently at odds with your visceral disdain for immigrants, but that's how the law of large numbers shakes out.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoThe data does not support your position. >they cancel out in the medium run If this were true we'd see wages keeping pace with productivity. We'd also see wealth inequality remain constant. The US is famous for neither of those things being true. Your toy model of US economic activity is flawed with respect to real life.
- worstspotgain 2y ago> If this were true we'd see wages keeping pace with productivity. We'd also see wealth inequality remain constant. These are macroeconomic variables that are affected by many factors. The production function argument I made is strictly microeconomic and independent of these.