Comment: I'm not defensive and it

(See in situ)


I'm not defensive and it

I'm not defensive and it wasn't me who was insulting. I just said you're givens aren't. What I wrote was not the least Keynesian and what you stated, again, isn't remotely Austrian. It's an assertion of a hypothetical improvement to a hypothetical business model. Maybe it's an improvement, maybe it's not. It doesn't address the general problem, and the problem isn't low wages.

If you want to stop the banks from taking from the mouths of labor just STOP it. End the Fed. And don't replace it. Ever. Wages are being inflated away and redistributed to Wall Street. Stop that.

But increasing nominal wages is nothing to be desired per se. Each market actor, whether capital or labor is working to increase total revenue. In a free market this leads to greater purchasing power for all concerned over time. In a free market if your total revenue is too high, whether labor or capital you invite competition, which will enter the market with better skills or newer capital goods. Bad for you, but good for society if you overplay your hand.

From labors perspective increased TR is beneficial only so long as it's not so much as you price yourself out vs the competition. The ideal wage, like the ideal profit is just as high as you can get away with without inviting competition. In this way the most goods and services are produced and the wealth society is optimized.

But the ideal wage or profit is not determinable by any formula overall, for any specific market, or even any specific worker.

What we do know now is that labor is too expensive, empirically, because we have unemployment. It's too high because of government action such as minimum wage laws, unemployment benefits, and 'collective bargaining' protection, etc. Every intervention they take to minimize unemployment will further increase it sooner or later.