= = = = =
That was a very cool gotcha, a real turn-the-tables.Are you saying that increasing the number of workers is bad for worker bargaining position?
What's your opinion on immigration again?
Wrong, but well-played.
Supply and demand: increase supply, and all else being equal, the price falls to the market-clearing rate at which demand takes all that can be supplied.
Immigration: the cross-border movement of people. Not to be confused with a mass movement of working-age adults.
Is the American Dream more accessible today, than in the 1950s?
Of course. Delete obvious and institutionalized bigotry and it automatically expands the universe that may achieve that dream.
Does it involve a manufacturing job and a stay-at-home spouse?
Go on, pull the other one.
(It has bells on it!)
= = = = =
Feel free to point out where my personal experiences make any of my economic or historical arguments invalid.
Go ahead, be my guest. (Oh, and I haven’t lived in Berkeley since early 1983. What’s your excuse?)
Incorrect.Thatcherism, Reaganomics and our own Rogernomics were a switch by western governments from a policy of full employment to a policy of inflation control.
Reagan’s supply side nonsense was at least in part aimed at expanding employment through corporate investment. Thatcherism started off as a battle with labor unions. I’m not familiar with Roger, but your record of identifying the underlying themes of major economic policy shifts doesn’t encourage me to think he deliberately set out to reduce employment.
Laissez faire, if we ever encounter it in The Real World, will have nothing to do with how inflation is calculated. Different subject altogether.
But, If you really like having a rotary dial landline in your consumer price basket, go for it.