🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0DLrM.Bzz@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan3.212307.6498@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
|> >In article <38069@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
|>  
|> >|> You don't think that American workers benefitted from having had 10
|> >|> percent of the population excluded from the job market?
|> 
|> >They probably did. I would say that that was another reason in favor of the
|> >"preference" if it weren't for the fact that the same people that had an
|> >easier time job hunting payed significantly higher taxes to finance the
|> >salaries of those abroad.
|> 
|> I completely disagree, and I think you need to take a much different view of
|> economics in order to see it.  The most important action of workers in
|> an economy with regard to individual well-being is not how many jobs are
|> "filled", but how much production is going on.  If 10% of the population
|> is not producing (or not producing as much as before) then the overall
|> wellbeing which can be achieved is going to be roughly 10% less.

I would remind you that despite the loss of 10% of the workforce (if 10% is the
correct figure) production increased tremendously. A consensus wartime effort
breeds nationalism and with it productivity.

|> Jobs do not exist in some static quantity in order to be doled out and 
|> divided up.  This view of jobs as some kind of natural resource is the
|> source of an awful lot of confusion in economics if you ask me.  Perhaps
|> of the educationists started treating production as the primary goal of
|> economics rather than the distribution of what has been produced, we wouldn't
|> see so many economically naive views being so popular in the political realm.
|> 
|> Remember Say's Law:  You can't consume more than you produce.

Say's law doesn't work in these United States.

Jason W. Solinsky