Health care is a component of healthy culture too
1 Like
Yes it does, or “objective value” is meaningless.
“opinion of worth” = “value” according to people who want the stuff being produced. Outside this individual opinion there’s no basis for any “value” notion. If there were no people with opinions of worth, no “value” would exist.
“price” and “value” are about the same, unless you just say the two terms are nonsensical.
Though not precisely the same, they must be approximately the same throughout the market generally, with only slight discrepancies, and where there might be some fraud. Otherwise they’re about the same, unless you scrap the market as meaningless and chaotic and pointless.
And the value of labor is determined by supply-and-demand the same as the value of any other commodity bought and sold.
You cannot explain what “value” means without using supply and demand to determine it. It has more value if someone WANTS it (demand) and if it’s in short supply. E.g., how can you not acknowledge that water has more value where it is more scarce? Both its “value” and its “price” are made higher by the scarcity, as well as by the higher demand for it.
Thus many factory workers today are overpaid, as the demand for them has decreased and the supply of them has increased. And yet because of tradition and symbolism these workers are still paid higher. It’s not because they couldn’t easily be replaced.
“valuable” = difficult to replace, or IRREPLACEABLE = higher price generally.
The few factory workers who are more specialized are worth more and are paid more. That’s not most factory workers today, whose value has declined, as shown by those graphs, as the demand for them has decreased and they became more replaceable.
Bingo!
It’s just that today there are fewer manufacturing JOBS than before, because it’s not the JOBS which create the value, but the science and engineering. And Trump’s “manufacturing” only means “Jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!” Not real production of value, but just JOB SLOTS to put unneeded job-seekers into, to get the unemployment numbers down.
Just symbolism (Jobs), no substance.
Apparently the observation that you just finished Econ 101 and are ready to take on the world are spot on. In other words, you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but you will do it quite vigorously.
1 Like
Yes. This is all opinion. No objective value. Supply and demand curves are just plots of opinions. Its just a model for how people behave. Not an assertion of objective value.
Dude. Wages have been flat for decades. Their productivity has skyrocketed. Everyone uses machines and computers. Everyone. This isnt isolated to factory workers. Email, phones, cars, laptops, management software, etc. And yet, macroeconomic measures of wages to productivity in the aggregate are flat, while the top 5% have grown exponentially. Now, please continue with repetition of supply and demand curves, and assertions about the historical wages of scientists and engineers (which you’ve provided no real world data for)
Value is objectively measurable, according to the demand. “Demand” means the want for the stuff. People want or need it. The greater the want is, the greater the “demand” is. It’s measured by people buying the stuff, or offering a price for it.
And as this “demand” goes up, the “value” of the stuff increases.
It’s “objective” in the same sense as the want for it is objective. Wanting, like hunger, desire, craving – it’s OK to call this “objective” as a fact of our biology, our brain cells.
Even the “demand” of animals for something could be included, though the “value” and “demand” in economics usually means only the wants of humans. It’s “objective” but also is not a physical object we can weigh and hold in our hand.
Of the wants, the hungers, the cravings for something, the desires. Don’t we have wants? drives which cause us to buy or try to produce or gain something?
Sort of. How could there be any value or supply or demand which have no connection to people’s behavior? But it’s also the motivations or drives which cause the behavior.
Yes, it’s “objective” even though it’s about motivations or drives causing the behavior. Just because it’s about behavior and causes of it does not mean it isn’t objective. Just because it’s difficult to measure or to hold in your hand does not mean it has no objectivity.
Science deals with non-physical objects which are related to the physical objects. “Value” is a non-physical object which can be measured via the physical objects, like the products being offered or bought.
That there’s a subjective element doesn’t mean there’s nothing objective about it.
Not EVERYONE’s wages. Wages of the most competitive have increased. Many specialists in the hi-tech economy have done well. It’s normal competition, supply-and-demand, the more productive higher-skilled irreplaceable workers increasing their value and being paid more.
Maybe for most workers the wages have been flat, but those are the less competitive, less valuable workers, not the more valuable ones whose performance has improved.
Only because they (average workers) were provided with better machines to operate. Not because their individual performance improved.
Your graphs showed the top 30% doing just fine, gaining ground.
Everyone has been made better off by the new technology, even those not working, even welfare recipients. But the technology advancement does not mean your wages automatically must increase, or that you’re entitled to a higher wage just because you were given a better machine to operate.
That we have better technology does not require higher wages to be paid to everyone, but only to those who produced that new technology or did other improvements. Just because you operate a better machine today than 20 years ago does not mean you improved or that your value increased. If you are just as replaceable today as 20 years ago, then your value has not increased.
Those who gave you that better machine to operate are irreplaceable, not you.
More replaceable = less valuable.
Get used to it.
The demand curve is a plot of how many goods the aggregate would purchase at a given price. Its not a measure of objectuve value. Its mire of a survey. Same as the supply curve. The equilibrium isnt how much a profuct is “objectively” worth. Its just the point where both parties try to maximize volume.
Thats your opinion
It does, because you are able to output more.
Yes it is, along with the supply curve. The supply and demand together determine the price or value. Price and value are about the same. Objective determinations are made in some cases that a price is too high, meaning that it’s higher than the value. There are even laws which make some forms of excess price illegal, in those unusual cases, usually due to some anticompetitive behavior by sellers.
If “value” is not objective, then how do you explain what excess price means, which is an objective determination by economists in some cases.
You can nit-pick over the “objective” term. But there is a price which can be identified in the curves as too high, e.g., utility companies overcharging. This is based on what the competitive price would be, which is the “right” price, or the price which should be charged. This is an “objective” determination, even though it’s difficult to calculate.
This RIGHT PRICE is the “value” in the sense that sometimes an actual price might be higher or lower than the competitive price, or the “right” price. If you disregard this as not being “objective,” then you’re rejecting all determinations by economists that a certain price was too low or too high. They do make such determinations. There are many examples. But they’re a tiny percent of all the prices in the market.
But there are some cases where this point ends up being too high or low, i.e., the price is too high or too low. Not commonly, but in some cases. In price-fixing, e.g., the actual price is too high because of the anticompetitive behavior by sellers. I.e., there is a JUDGMENT of what the RIGHT PRICE is, or what the price SHOULD be, rather than what it actually is.
The term “VALUE” is basically this right price. Usually equal to the actual price in the competitive market. But there’s reason to consider the 1% of cases where this right price is not the actual price in the market.
E.g. fraud might explain why the actual price is not the RIGHT price in a certain case. I.e., the item is priced higher or lower than its value.
So the supply and demand curves tell us what the competitive price is, which is the right price, or what the price should be. There’s nothing wrong with calling that the “value,” but if you want to nit-pick over terminology, you can call it something else, like “worth.” It is an objectively determined amount, even though it’s difficult to calculate.
COMPETITIVE PRICE is an objective figure.
It’s what the commodity is really worth, and what the right price is for it. It’s based on supply-and-demand.
I.e., certain workers have less worth if they are in greater supply, and also if the demand for them has decreased. It means they have less worth if they are more replaceable.
Replaceability is “objective” and relates to the supply:
Too many = too easily replaceable = too easy to acquire = less worth.
“Just because you operate a better machine today than 20 years ago does not mean you improved or that your value increased.”
But only the better machine explains the increased output, not the operator who did not improve. The part which improved is the part which has the increased value. While the part which is the same as before still has the same value as before.
How can the part which did not improve have more value than before when it was just as good as it is now?
only answer: it’s a crybaby.
Thats your opinion.
Back in the 80s and 90s, a lot of clothing - better quality men’s clothing, shoes, children’s clothing - was manufactured in the US. The quality was very good. North Carolina, New England were two hubs of this manufacturing.
Unfortunately, the one escalating cost was labor. The cost of raw materials and utilities/maintenance didn’t escalate that much, but the escalating cost of labor, and the issues associated with labor (benefits, pensions, potential strikes) made the manufacturers start to look for ways to resolve the labor issues, and the most efficient way seemed to go overseas and take advantage of a cheap labor force. The clothes buyer in the family started to see labels “Made in__________” the blank being China, India, Dominican Republic, Mexico. Unfortunately for the consumer there was a slow decline in quality and fluctuations in sizing, which anyone whose bought a shirt or pair of shoes made overseas may be familiar with. I certainly think we did a better job of manufacturing certain goods, I just don’t know how you resolve the issues that made it unaffordable.
The end result doesn’t have to be a lower standard of living. I would agree with you if nothing changes except higher prices. If more people have better paying jobs as a result, who cares if prices for luxuries are higher? Buy them when you can. I’d rather have a good paying job and higher prices than working for Amazon and cheap TVs.
How do you benefit when you can earn $20/hr working in a factory, instead of working for $11/hr at Walmart?
