According to some economists, we need more unemployment in Australia to get inflation under control. But, Gareth Hutchens asks, do they know how jobseekers are treated?
File this under “I’m got mine, the rest of you can sod off”!
The economy is there to serve the people, not the other way around. If the economy requires people to suffer, maybe we need to rethink how parts of the economy work.
It just keeps feeling relevant. The most relevant part to this comment chain:
What is the value of a human life in the theology of The Market? Here the new deity pauses, but not for long. The computation may be complex, but it is not impossible. We should not believe, for example, that if a child is born severely handicapped, unable to be “productive,” The Market will decree its death. One must remember that the profits derived from medications, leg braces, and CAT-scan equipment should also be figured into the equation. Such a cost analysis might result in a close call—but the inherent worth of the child’s life, since it cannot be quantified, would be hard to include in the calculation.
It is there to serve us. The economist point is that everyone —in particular low income workers—will suffer as they everyone is effectively getting a 7% pay cut this year. That serves no one.
Ideally there would be a few stay at home parents (families who can afford it), lawyers and doctors partners, and retirees out to the work force. These are the people that have spare money to spend on things and are driving up prices. Not low income workers. Unfortunately the employment rate is the only proxy measurement we have for this though.
But hypothetically these people who can afford to give up their jobs (aforementioned list) are hogging up low and middle income jobs (admin at the GP clinic / law firm) for ”fun” money, so there would be more easy/entry level jobs available for low skilled workers.
On the upper end, soon-to-be-retirees who are currently managers could make the jump so everyone below them gets to move up the ladder making entry level positions available.
I’m not sure how you could incentivise this though.
The economy is there to serve the people, not the other way around. If the economy requires people to suffer, maybe we need to rethink how parts of the economy work.
Its weird how some “experts” treat economy as some angry god that we need to appease with sacrifices, right?
You just reminded me again of this random article I read a long time ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/03/the-market-as-god/306397/
Without paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fmagazine%2Farchive%2F1999%2F03%2Fthe-market-as-god%2F306397%2F
It just keeps feeling relevant. The most relevant part to this comment chain:
Very interesting and insightful comparison! Thank You;
It is there to serve us. The economist point is that everyone —in particular low income workers—will suffer as they everyone is effectively getting a 7% pay cut this year. That serves no one.
Ideally there would be a few stay at home parents (families who can afford it), lawyers and doctors partners, and retirees out to the work force. These are the people that have spare money to spend on things and are driving up prices. Not low income workers. Unfortunately the employment rate is the only proxy measurement we have for this though.
But it’s also the low wage earners that is most likely to lose their job because of supply and demand.
Depends more on the industry. Higher income is usually more affected by recessions.
No idea what would happen and reality is messy.
But hypothetically these people who can afford to give up their jobs (aforementioned list) are hogging up low and middle income jobs (admin at the GP clinic / law firm) for ”fun” money, so there would be more easy/entry level jobs available for low skilled workers.
On the upper end, soon-to-be-retirees who are currently managers could make the jump so everyone below them gets to move up the ladder making entry level positions available.
I’m not sure how you could incentivise this though.