Examining the paradox of shortage of workers versus shortage of jobs

You certainly do have a point, but I think that is only part of what is going on overall.
How many things do you own that existed 30 or 40 years ago?

The entire economy doesn't operate as one giant antique thrift store.

 

**** loads.
I own **** loads of things more than 30 years old. The vast bulk of everything I own is. 95%+.

If you consider your house to be your primary property in life, you will likely be in the same position.


The entire economy doesn't rely on old goods. But most of it does.

If only a tiny amount of it did, that would be enough to assure growth forever.
Starting low, that growth would accelerate until year upon year, a tiny group of fishing huts becomes the great city of London.



The roads aren't new. Nor are the railways not the ports. The buildings aren't new.
The electricity grid isn't new. Nor is the water supply or the sewer.
The ships that use the port. The planes that use the airstrip. Most of this is all 30 years+ old.

Your car, your TV, your phone, your clothes, your food, new.
That **** you bought from IKEA, new.
All the rest... old.



If I buy a hammer I will never need to buy another hammer.
But I didn't buy my hammer. I have my fathers hammer.
Instead I bought a screwdriver.
I will never need another screwdriver.
My son will have one hammer and one screwdriver. He will be able to buy a saw.

Economy will grow. It is human nature to conserve.

 

But what really is the difference between you and the fascist peddling mercantilism? Its just different variant of right wing economics. Both of you are hiding from your true economic outlook.

 

a cost of living adjustment for Labor, a solution to simple poverty, and some help with social costs.

 

I suppose if everything is in perfect equilibrium they're no longer variables.

 

and??

 

Employers will often use this to argue for more immigration because they desperately need more workers and argue there's a shortage.

Or people will argue that the country doesn't need to worry about the job market for workers because employers are saying they have a shortage of workers.

 

Are you able to make the connection, james M, or is that too complicated for your brain??

 

so???? every buyer wants more supply and lower price. So????

 

you forgot to say what connection, exactly??

 

simple, what they mean is they want cheaper "foreign" labor

 

It comes down to the curse of labour market flexibility.

Free market economics has discouraged labour protection. Insufficient minimum wage protection. Elimination of long term contracting. Attacking trade union rights.

The result is a reduced incentive for firms to invest in general or specific training. It's ironic that skills shortages are often the result of market forces. Migrant labour then becomes a cheap means to fill the gap.

 

India is taking much of the high tech jobs, America was going to become the information society, we are handing that title over to India, those that control the information have the power, this will backfire on us and has national security risks

glad I grew up when I did, I fear for future generations

 

The ultimate "shove it kids" is illustrated by Britain. Stripped of any labour market protection and achieving near perfect flexibility, it harvests zero hour contracts and the gig economy. The risk of working poverty, and chances of social immobility, for her youngsters are through the roof.

It is the case that old economic relations were breaking down. Product lifecycles, for example, were declining. But, in those circumstances, you don't throw your future generations to the wolves. That just guarantees misery.

 

actually capitalism guarantees that you pay the highest wages possible so as not to lose your best workers and go bankrupt. Do you understand?

 

How do you account for the productivity gap? How do you account for monopsonistic labour markets?