Econ general I suppose.
>inb4 Austrians, Marxists or ancaps.
The only exception to that might be Hayek or Schumpeter. On that note, what did Hayek actually contribute to economics, aside from information and central planning? Also pic related, if anyone in the developed world says capitalism isn't working, perhaps tell them their citizenship rent is being lost and capital is being directed to the more cost efficient places, with the side effect of higher wages/standards of living in these countries which are developing.
Economics
Ethan Brown
Hunter Ross
>side effect of higher wages
>higher wages
>developed world
>pic related
Yeah enormous wage growth in that graph. I mean like wow 1%.
Jace Anderson
I was talking about high wages elsewere desu. Look at Asia/Eastern Europe etc
Oliver Jackson
You said in the developed world. Of course wages are growing in Romania and Bulgaria for some time.
Cooper Rivera
>higher wages/standards of living in these countries which are developing.
DEVELOPING
Zachary James
Why is growing wages in developing countries necessarily a bad thing? I get that the prices of imported goods may rise, but it also eases the wage gap between these and the developed economies. It could result in less offshoring/outsourcing and more demand for domestic goods, because their relative price falls compared to imported goods.
Thomas Flores
I was saying that higher wages was generally a good thing. My main point was that people in the West say wages have stagnated, where as across the world they've grown.
Leo Bennett
my bad.
Well people in the west experience a stagnation in their own wage growth mainly because of low inflation, caused by serveral economic situations (low output etc.). Avereage people in the west doesn't care/know/show interest in/whatever in the wages of anyone but them self and those related (read: others from the west - mainly because of insecurity about their own wage)
- put simply and bold: People are misinformed. They show interest in anything that directly affect them, something they are envious of or something they feel is unfair to them. Other than that, the average person simply doesn't care to check facts.
To support your observations and give a perspective that is not neoclassical: Verspagen had a beautiful and simple theory from the early 90'ies called "cathing up".
It simply shows that those economies further away from their natural production level in a transmissionmechanism (poor countries) would experience a larger growth in general, unless the country didn't have the knowledge to imitate technological advancement. I.e. Eastern Europe will at some point catch up to the level of western europe given enough time. While countries in africa may never catch up because they often can't integrate simple technology (areas without electricity/internet for example) and therefore would not be able to keep up with the west. The growth in western countries will at some point stagnate. It's the principle of "low hanging fruits" - the advancement that are fast, easy and cheap will be done first. The more advanced a country becomes, the harder it is to better itself- Less advanced countries could copy the newer technology without R&D cost, time etc. and thereby experience a larger growth rate.
Chase Brooks
I agree, also with diminishing marginal returns catch up makes sense. By not neoclassical what school are you referring to?
Brandon Adams
It's also the fact that unfortunately due to societal factors, developed economies stagnate when it comes to population.
No growth in population, no need to create more goods and services for a particular level of technology.