Examining the paradox of shortage of workers versus shortage of jobs

there can be no economic stagnation since,

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

 

Gone down as a share of global exports?
All that means is China has grown faster.



So from this graph which shows the exact opposite of what you are suggesting your graph shows, we can see that Japan imports goods, adds value to them and then exports them.

And in doing so earn 20%.

 

You need to adjust for inflation.

That can be a little tricky to do, because if you plug it into an inflation calculator it's just going to compare it to other currencies which have also been inflating, and asset prices in Japan's economy were still gradually deflating during this time from aftermath of the property price bubble.

100 yen in 1990 could buy 4.48 grams of silver.
100 yen in 2005 could buy 3.86 grams of silver.
I could infer that suggests the yen has decreased by 14% in value over this time.

 

So you're going to dismiss secular stagnation? Perhaps refer to the demographic timebomb and impact on investment rates?

 

That's an interesting example right there. The population may be unable to work because they could be too old.
These old people might want jobs, but employers do not want to hire them, leading to a mismatch. You could still have unemployment and labor shortages.

Or, alternatively, if a country takes in too many young immigrants, the "caliber" of the workers the employer is searching to hire may not be the same.
I read that only a tiny fraction of the refugee migrants in Germany have found employment, and that employers prefer to hire immigrants from Turkey to work in their factories because they're seen as better workers.

 

Actually its very easy to dismiss the viewpoint that insufficient investment is linked to a decline in prime age workers. Still waiting for one study that concludes the Japanese economy "went on the decline after they had to compete with China for exports to the rest of the world". Its going to be a long wait, isn't it?

 

Economics is not provable. You can argue to the cows come home.
This is what I know.
Mrs Baff is a Jap and I have been working with the japs for 30 years.

The exchange rate fluctuates.
The economy "stagnates" on the news.

And they haven't changed at all. I see no discernable difference to anyone's wealth.
I don't see any poverty. I'm not getting less work or less pay and nor is Ako.
Quite the opposite Chinese growth has bought us both more.

So, my advice. Go with your gut.
Don't bother over analysing a myriad of statistics.
Apply the common sense test to them.

Does what they say is occurring, fit with what my eyes are seeing occur.
If not, it is wrong.

 

Japan has suffered through a 25-year long persistent Recession, but they have finally just moved out of it within the last couple of years.

 

None of which refers to trade with China. The post-asset price bubble is something much more than mercantilist blubbering.

 

impossible since the right wing soothsays and hearsays, "doomsday inflation scenarios".

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

Stagnation is impossible in our first world economy.

 

What is stagnation? An economy can't keep on growing forever, you know.

There might be an illusion of continued growth, with everything costing more, but actually the amount of things being exchanged stays the same.

 

Ako's dad is still working in the lab at 76.
That makes her very proud. Lol.

My dad retired at 53. ROFL.

 

Yes it can and you should expect it to.

Each year I earn more than I spend.
My capital increases.

With more capital I can earn more.


So each year humans have built stuff.
Economy = economy plus Stone Henge.

My house which I built will be around after I die.
Economy = economy + my house.


The economy can and will keep growing for as long as humans can produce wealth that outlives them.
In a word "forever".

 

I suppose the demographic crisis depends to a great extent on what type of jobs the workers are doing, and also the overall health of the workforce, to a lesser extent. (Japanese do tend to be healthier than Americans)

Capital doesn't increase exponentially.
Your individual personal example may just be an example of the fallacy of composition, what seems true for an individual person is not necessarily true of the economy as a whole.
Capital doesn't just grow itself without human labor. (At least not yet at this stage, setting aside the future potential of advanced robotization)
We might have reached a saturation stage.

There has to be an economic basis behind the growth of capital in an economy.
In the past, that's resulted in a change in the way of doing things (as well as of course technology).

Getting an interest on your capital just because other people are in debt, or property prices are really high and it takes people longer to pay off their mortgages, or a greater share of the population are renting, is not really growing capital in a macroeconomic way.​

 

lol. A sixteen dollar an hour minimum wage; what stagnation?

 

It doesn't have to increase exponentially.
It just has to increase.

It does however compound increase. There is an acceleration curve involved.


It's not just me who owns stuff made before me.
All my antiques and houses older than me are inherited wealth.
My fathers tool kits. Grandmothers gold ring.

The bridges, the palaces the public gardens and the tree's.

Every where I look I see old buildings and new buildings.
Entire cities have arisen everywhere man is found.

Inter-generational growth.

This growth, year on year is visible from space. It is real and it is ongoing.

The GDP required to make the Pyramids just keeps on paying.
Year after year after year. Decades after decade after decade. Century after century after century. Millenia after millenia after millenia.

Meanwhile the populations there build other new stuff to add. Another Pyramid. A canal.

Growth is guaranteed.

We build **** faster than it gets destroyed.

 

That is probably going to lead to shortages, at least initially.

What if many employers can no longer to afford to hire those workers at the higher wage levels?

I was just pointing out that capital doesn't inherently automatically increase.

The fact that your capital may be automatically growing in an investment account doesn't mean capital is increasing in the general economy.​

 

demand and supply.

 

The ultimate question really is what does the demand curve actually look like? Will the quantity demanded not really change much if the price is increased?

And how much would all those workers with higher wages result in a shift in the demand curve?

 

Why does that matter in our command economy? The right can simply insist on supply side economics.

 

That is a good example.

Yes, it is more economical for people to live in cities which already exist than to have to build new ones.
(Part of the reason that high levels of immigration drive up costs of living)

 

Right.
Also we aim to provide for the next generation.
It is a deliberate and intentional act to build stuff for the future generations to use.

I built my house to last longer than me. By deliberate conscientious design.
Same for all the roads and bridges and canals and public buildings etc etc etc.

They are built to last and we take it for granted when we build them that they will. It is our aim.

I have my children in mind when I use my tools, they will not have to buy a set of their own, because they can have mine. Many of which were my dads, a few of which were his dad's.
We pass our wealth down, and each time we do, our children start life with more capital.

The economy grows because of the human desire to protect their young.

 

In older times, they used to build infrastructure and buildings to last for a hundred years.
In today's time, they more often build homes to only last for 30 years.

This probably has a profound economic effect over the long-term. The simple fact is, the people building a building today are probably not going to reap the economic benefits from that building a hundred years from now. Yet this will benefit future generations.

In a way, it can be seen as a sort of long-term intergenerational investment, something we're no longer doing today.

I think it's because communities are changing more rapidly and people's movement patterns are more dynamic, so there's less thought into creating a public landmark that will still be standing a long time from now, or building a house that your children will be able to live in after you die.

This is also why companies are reluctant to invest in training their own workers these days, because there is so much job mobility and turnover, and workers do not stay with the same company for their entire lives anymore.

So more mobility does create some capital investment problems.

 

It inherently automatically increases.
Simply because some of the things we produce retain value to others after we have used them.

 

My house is a thousand years old. The road leading to my house is 2,000 years old.
Rather than being built to last, every generation who lived in the house has built an extension on to it. So it has lasted, but also it has grown.
It is bigger. It keeps getting bigger.

That 2,000 year old road. It has grown. Been improved. Got better. It is worth more.
We better ourselves. We make things easier for ourselves.
We improve our environments. We constantly grow.

Ants do the same! Termites too.



Gold from the ground has value.
No matter if the ring breaks, the gold has been mined and processed and has value.
The work that was done to get it mined and refined remains valuable forever.

Each day more gold is mined and refined.
Each day the total amount of gold in the economy increases.

And it increases...forever.

Economies grow.

We make useful stuff faster than it gets destroyed.