-25
The past 2 weeks really have just been the Democrats doubling down and saying the quiet part out loud.
(i.redd.it)
Yes, it's a PCM meme, but still accurate as fuck.
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
-25 points (17.9% liked)
Conservative
385 readers
98 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
There was population growth in the late 1800s, it wasn't until the population got paid more that the economy took off.
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.
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.
They can move production to places with available labour. You know for example the places you deported all that labour to.
Which is where the tariffs come in. Helps balance everything out.
By making the products more expensive while your wages stagnate? How's that balancing anything out?
Why will wages stagnante?
A rising tide raises all boats or in this case wages.
Not if the work follows the workers outside of the US
You must have missed the reply two comments up.
https://lemm.ee/post/47845390/16367562
You must have missed my response to that
https://lemm.ee/post/47845390/16368689
I read your non-response, which is why I asked how wages will stagnate to your response to tarrifs.
The argument was that wages rise if labour is scarce. My counter is that labour will just be moved outside with the people, thus countering the scarcity, thus making wages stagnate rather than increase.
Somehow tariffs are supposed to balance this out. Which is really the nonsense in all of this.