That’s what happens when you privatize crown corporations and stifle competition.
Two points I found interesting:
The labour movement has long understood that raising output per hour of work through more investment in machinery and equipment (as opposed to work intensification) lays the basis for negotiating rising wages and living standards and investing in social programs and public services. Higher productivity can also support the reduction of working time.
In the US, governments have more often let the economy “run hot.” Low unemployment results in higher wages which pressure companies to invest in new capital equipment and skills, raising productivity.
I don’t know if there’s data but it could explain why the correlation between wage growth and productivity decoupled over the last 40-50 years. The standard assumed causation is
productivity -> wage growth, but that’s shown to be false by the decoupling. If however we assumewage growth -> productivitycausation then at least that doesn’t violate the decoupling data.If however we assume
wage growth -> productivitycausation then at least that doesn’t violate the decoupling data.You’re saying that our economy is addicted to using low wage earners (like TFWs) keeping businesses profitable without having to invest in improving labour productivity.
In Canada, the unemployment rate has been generally higher than in the US, and temporary workers have been used to contain wage growth.
Womp womp.
Meanwhile, the people coming here to work are vulnerable to exploitation.
People act their wage and Canadian monopolies pay dirt. This is a problem with corporate exploitation, not workers.
Oh no, did the Liberal party screw up electoral reform? Awwwww dang, guess you’re just gonna have to vote for them or yous gets the conservatives again!
Opps didn’t mean to!
Not an economist, but these articles seem to suggest that investment is somehow part of the calculation of “output”?
Am I understanding that correctly?
