4 ms·
Under that model there is a large number of workers who are worth nothing at all or only their bare sustenance. Now this might be true to some degree from an ec
by jiggy2011 13y ago
Under that model there is a large number of workers who are worth nothing at all or only their bare sustenance. Now this might be true to some degree from an economic standpoint (in that it's an equilibrium) but it doesn't look so rosy from a societal standpoint. And what purpose does the economy have if not to serve society?
You also have to contend that market prices for labour would likely be higher if there were not so many unemployed. With low unemployment then firms would have incentive to make some of these temps into full time workers to prevent another firm from taking the best workers out of the temp pool.
- Futurebot 13y agoRegarding the "workers who are worth nothing" - Zero Marginal Product workers: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/scott-sumner-on-zero-mp-workers.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/sco... http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/07/zero-marginal-product-workers.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/07/zer... From a societal standpoint, it's absolutely horrible. This train can't go on forever. At some point, the chorus of "basic income" from the large number of chronically unemployed will become too loud to ignore. For places that already have one, a recalibration towards an "Arts, Sports, and Lesiure society" should already be starting.