Re: OT to the extreme

In article <m2wtis6gun.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Patrick May <pjm@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Tim X <timx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > The demand vs. offer works on both sides.
> >
> > Only when both sides are close to being in balance. If the supply of
> > labor greatly exceeds the demand, wages get artificially
> > depressed. If the demand for labor exceeds the supply, they get
> > artificially inflated.
> There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price for
> labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it reflects the
> point where the supply and demand curves intersect. Would you say
> that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated when there is a
> freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?

There is an elephant in the living room that both sides of this debate
are overlooking: labor is not analogous to oranges. There are methods
of dispensing with excess oranges (like turning them into animal feed)
that are simply not considered acceptable to apply to excess labor.
Furthermore, the global quality metric is a vector, not a scalar. If
one person is living like a king while nine people starve that is not
necessarily considered "better" than having all ten people living
modestly even if the total dollar value of the former situation exceeds
that of the latter. There are other non-linear effects as well (like
the fact that producing labor has a much longer lead time than producing
oranges, or just about anything else for that matter).

That is why simple-minded analysis of the situation is wrong at both
extremes of the political spectrum.