I agree.
Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
I'm a finance guy in a multi-billion dollar consumer products company.
What's your work experience? This is an honest question.
Cost Of Labor Definition | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-of-labor.aspInvestopedia
The cost of labor is the sum of all wages paid to employees, as well as the cost of employee benefits and payroll taxes paid by an employer. The cost of labor is broken into direct and indirect costs.
I don't know why we need to post the definition of it, but apparently we do.
www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-of-labor.aspInvestopedia
The cost of labor is the sum of all wages paid to employees, as well as the cost of employee benefits and payroll taxes paid by an employer. The cost of labor is broken into direct and indirect costs.
I don't know why we need to post the definition of it, but apparently we do.
This may be more information than you wanted. I have been at various periods in my long life, among other things here omitted, a newspaper delivery boy, a self-employed yard maintenance boy, manager of a retail photographic supply store, employee of Western Electric, employee of the University of California, directed contract research for Exxon Corp, U.S. Army, Gen Trak Corp, Dept. of Energy, and others. Consultant to INDAL Aluminum Corp., National Institutes of Health, (both long term relationships) and various small firms at various times. Primary author of numerous papers in he primary research literature and patents.
Happily retired.
Last edited:
From an interview of Joe Stiglitz:
...White: ... To what extent do you feel economist and economic theory is culpable for the crisis? What is the role of an economist going forward?
Stiglitz: The prevalent ideology—when I say prevalent it’s not all economists— held that markets were basically efficient, that they were stable. You had people like Greenspan and Bernanke saying things like “markets don't generate bubbles.” They had precise models that were precisely wrong and gave them confidence in theories that led to the policies that were responsible for the crisis, and responsible for the growth in inequality. Alternative theories would have led to very different policies. For instance, the tax cut in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush. Economists that are very widely respected were cutting taxes at the top, increasing inequality in our society when what we needed was just the opposite. Most of the models used by economists ignored inequality. They pretended that macroeconomy was unaffected by inequality. I think that was totally wrong. The strange thing about the economics profession over the last 35 year is that there has been two strands: One very strongly focusing on the limitations of the market, and then another saying how wonderful markets were. Unfortunately too much attention was being paid to that second strand. What can we do about it? We've had this very strong strand that is focused on the limitations and market imperfections. A very large fraction of the younger people, this is what they want to work on. It's very hard to persuade a young person who has seen the Great Recession, who has seen all the problems with inequality, to tell them inequality is not important and that markets are always efficient. They'd think you're crazy. ...
...White: ... To what extent do you feel economist and economic theory is culpable for the crisis? What is the role of an economist going forward?
Stiglitz: The prevalent ideology—when I say prevalent it’s not all economists— held that markets were basically efficient, that they were stable. You had people like Greenspan and Bernanke saying things like “markets don't generate bubbles.” They had precise models that were precisely wrong and gave them confidence in theories that led to the policies that were responsible for the crisis, and responsible for the growth in inequality. Alternative theories would have led to very different policies. For instance, the tax cut in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush. Economists that are very widely respected were cutting taxes at the top, increasing inequality in our society when what we needed was just the opposite. Most of the models used by economists ignored inequality. They pretended that macroeconomy was unaffected by inequality. I think that was totally wrong. The strange thing about the economics profession over the last 35 year is that there has been two strands: One very strongly focusing on the limitations of the market, and then another saying how wonderful markets were. Unfortunately too much attention was being paid to that second strand. What can we do about it? We've had this very strong strand that is focused on the limitations and market imperfections. A very large fraction of the younger people, this is what they want to work on. It's very hard to persuade a young person who has seen the Great Recession, who has seen all the problems with inequality, to tell them inequality is not important and that markets are always efficient. They'd think you're crazy. ...
Interesting background. Thank you.
How many recessions has Stiglitz called?