4 ms·
In the long term, the only thing that _can_ increase wages on average and in general is productivity. Productivity increases mean the pie is bigger, and without
by MostlyStable 1y ago
In the long term, the only thing that _can_ increase wages on average and in general is productivity. Productivity increases mean the pie is bigger, and without that, there is no where for increased wages to come _from_. So by saying that producity only results in increased wages in the case of the worker uprising, that is equivalent to saying that wages can only rise from a worker uprising. The only way this isn't true is for some other proposed mechanism for worker wages to go up, and the only other methods would be short time, single increases where all you are doing is taking from someone else (presumably capital I guess?)
Sustained rates of increase _require_ increasing productivity. So no, they didn't explicitly state it, what they explicitly said was that productivity only results in increased wages if a worker uprising forces it. But that's the logical requirement of that statement.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago> there is no where for increased wages to come _from The pie doesn't have to grow when the pie is already massive, but only 1% of people are taking 90% of the pie
- hollerith 1y ago20-22% of the pie in the US.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoSure, whatever. The point was not in the exact number The point is that there is an answer to "Where could increased wages come from if we don't increase productivity" We don't have to increase productivity to pay some of the population less and other parts of the population more
- MostlyStable 1y agoYou can get short term or one time increases by taking from somewhere else, but without productivity gains, it's an inherently limited, zero sum game.
- int_19h 1y agoIt's not short-term or one-time if you're taking away and redistributing the economic rent that those people collect from the rest of us.