Robert Reich's F Minus In Economics

What's worse, there's nobody more insufferably arrogant in their sheer ignorance of economics than that smug little runt.

SowellFacts2Morons.jpg
 
I suspect there's not much of an audience for Clinton's former grinder monkey. He and Krugman have long since proven their expertise in applied basket weaving.
 
There is no Free Market in nature:
Robert-Reich-Random-House-1200x900.jpg

Everything You Need to Know About the New Economy

"To understand what really happened, it’s critical to understand that there is no 'free market' in nature.

"The term 'free market' suggests outcomes are objectively fair and that any 'intervention' in the free market is somehow 'unnatural.'

"But in reality, markets cannot exist without people constructing them. Markets depend on rules, and rules come out of legislatures, executive agencies, and courts.

"The biggest political change over the last four decades is the overwhelming dominance of big money in politics – influencing what those rules are to be."
 
There is no Free Market in nature:
Robert-Reich-Random-House-1200x900.jpg

Everything You Need to Know About the New Economy

"To understand what really happened, it’s critical to understand that there is no 'free market' in nature.

"The term 'free market' suggests outcomes are objectively fair and that any 'intervention' in the free market is somehow 'unnatural.'

"But in reality, markets cannot exist without people constructing them. Markets depend on rules, and rules come out of legislatures, executive agencies, and courts.

"The biggest political change over the last four decades is the overwhelming dominance of big money in politics – influencing what those rules are to be."
Like we already said: an economic illiterate who is self-righteous in his sheer ignorance
 

So, old Gregory is a member of the Hoover Institute. I would gladly take an F from him. He leaves something out, big time. Yes, Ford was able to pay his workers more because productivity increased significantly. And Ford passed on the savings from those productivity gains, not only to his employees, but to his customers in the form of lower prices. What is happening to productivity gains now? Sure, wages are going up a little bit, like they always do. And like Gregory mentioned, labor's share of income goes up during times of depression. But what Gregory leaves out is the productivity gains. Like today, yes wages are gong up. But it turns out, working remotely has done wonders for productivity. Workers are generating more, of course they should be paid more. But the reality is that now, like always, productivity gains are disproportionally supplied to the corporations, to capital, and not to labor. The reality is that if minimum wage was tied to productivity gains $15 an hour would be a bargain. The actual number is $24,

 
An increase in productivity is almost never the result of workers working harder or smarter; it is usually either automation or some other technological improvement. In fact, workers often have it easier when new technology comes in to make them more productive.

Tipped workers with a three-digit IQ understand that this innovation would harm them immediately. The employers will increase their prices by at least 20% to compensate for the higher base wages, and tips will simply go away, in most cases. When I go out to dinner with my wife and spend $40, I tip $10 to make it an even $50. If that meal is now $50, the tip goes away, and the waitress actually makes less.
 
I fell in hate with Reich shortly after 9/11. He did an opinion piece on NPR talking about how, now, finally, Americans will be ready for national ids and "adult supervision" when it came to surveillance and big government monitoring. You could hear the glee in his voice. He actually saw it as a good thing.

Of course, pretty much everything he's said and done since is along the same lines. I don't think he's ever met an intrusive government initiative he didn't like.
 
An increase in productivity is almost never the result of workers working harder or smarter; it is usually either automation or some other technological improvement. In fact, workers often have it easier when new technology comes in to make them more productive.

Tipped workers with a three-digit IQ understand that this innovation would harm them immediately. The employers will increase their prices by at least 20% to compensate for the higher base wages, and tips will simply go away, in most cases. When I go out to dinner with my wife and spend $40, I tip $10 to make it an even $50. If that meal is now $50, the tip goes away, and the waitress actually makes less.

I believe you are a little confused. Paying tipped workers higher salaries does not have anything to do with productivity. Now, I will not argue that productivity gains are most often the result of technological advancement or operational efficiencies, like Ford's assembly line. Should not the workers be able to share in those gains, just like Henry Ford's workers. And today, workers are responsible for the greater productivity from working remotely, don't they deserve the gain?

But regarding servers. Now there is a job where almost all the productivity gains goes to the worker. I waited tables for several years. Party of twenty, or a deuce, it mattered not. I never wrote a thing down. That made me much more efficient, more productive. While other servers might work a three table section, I could handle six, eight, or even more. That was more than twenty years ago, but I made so much money that I am still talked about within the local server community.
 
I understand no connection between productivity and tipped workers. Hence, a separate paragraph.
 

Forum List

Back
Top