?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Sarah's Blog [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Sarah

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

This explains a lot: [Oct. 18th, 2009|06:58 am]
Sarah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_theory_of_wages
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: andrewducker
2009-10-18 08:12 am (UTC)
Seems like a specialisation of standard market theory. People pay as little as they can for something - and this little will be minimised when there are exactly as many people to do a job as there are jobs to do.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: valeriekeefe
2009-10-18 02:19 pm (UTC)
Yes indeed, the only long-term solution, really, is to ensure that both such a surfeit of natural capital exists as to make the gap between subsistence workers and capital so great that it cannot persist in a democratic state. (Basically, less people, more goods and less pressure forcing wages down.) One of the main factors behind the long, slow, decline in wages has been the increase in global population, and thus the population of people in extreme poverty. Though really, population won't really lead prosperity, it must be the other way around. Birth rates fall as incomes both rise and stabilize. Iran, for example, isn't incredibly rich, but they have a relatively stable economy, and a fertility rate of just under 1.8, which China was only able to achieve with great repression and societal harm. (The UK also gets to 1.8, while Canada is closer to 1.5, just for those curious.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: valeriekeefe
2009-10-18 02:21 pm (UTC)
Never mind, some of the data appears to have changed, (Iran's at 2.04, which is below replacement) and I also should say, lest there be any confusion, Iran is a pretty repressive society, just that they haven't been focusing on rendering cis women effectively sterile to control their population.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)