Yes, it’s a PCM meme, but still accurate as fuck.

  • killingspark@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Setting aside all the other issues, if you think creating a worker shortage (which might increase wages short term) will do anything good for your economy: it won’t.

    Historically economic growth is pretty closely tied to population growth. More hands create more value. Removing hands will make the remaining hands more valuable but there is still less value created. And the people that hold economic power aren’t going to give up their share easily, so one way or another it will eventually mean even less for the workers.

    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      There was population growth in the late 1800s, it wasn’t until the population got paid more that the economy took off.

      • killingspark@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        While that’s true, the capitalists where getting richer and richer even before the big economic growth. They don’t really care. Also, the wage increases had to be hard fought for by a united working class. I don’t see american workers unite right now to fight the rich.

        • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Without exploitable labor employers will have to pay employees more. Workers won’t have to fight, they can do nothing and wages will still increase.

    • Kaboom@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Creating an under class of people doesn’t help. Look at the South vs the North. The south had slaves, the north largely did not. The north has much more industry.