12-22-2015, 11:51 AM
When there exists job demand, there exists pressure for an economy to fill it. While those jobs existed, there was pressure on the economy to turn out workers who would fit the bill of manufacturing labourer. Those jobs no longer exist, and now the pressure no longer exists. This should allow other sources of job demand (which might pay better) to have a stronger influence. This is a good thing.
On the other hand, choice is now lost. The variety of jobs available in the economy has lessened. If you are a manufacturing labourer, you must leave the Region or retrain to be something else (which requires a high activation energy. See Structural Unemployment) or luck out and find a new job without retraining, likely having to trade downwards in pay and satisfaction. This is a bad thing.
Fewer lower-paying jobs in the Region improved wages per capita. This increases house prices which increases the tax base which increases funding for social programs (like the GRT and LRT and community centres and libraries). This is a good thing.
Higher wages mean lessened pressure keeping _all_ prices down. This means inflation. This means less buying power for those who can least afford to have less buying power (including those recently out of manufacturing labourer jobs). This is a bad thing.
So what do you believe is more important? What do you believe will win out? What is a worse bad and which is a better good?
Is structural unemployment permanent or frictional? Is this part of a larger trend for increased wages for all (prosperity, progress), or is it a step towards greater income inequality (wealth disparity, class war)?
I don't have the numbers to find out. I'm not sure if it's even possible, as this is basically trying to predict the future.
We're all wrong just as far as we're all right. Now is too late to be talking about whether it is good or bad. Now is the time we should be asking those who this helped to assist those who this hurt. Because there are plenty of both.
On the other hand, choice is now lost. The variety of jobs available in the economy has lessened. If you are a manufacturing labourer, you must leave the Region or retrain to be something else (which requires a high activation energy. See Structural Unemployment) or luck out and find a new job without retraining, likely having to trade downwards in pay and satisfaction. This is a bad thing.
Fewer lower-paying jobs in the Region improved wages per capita. This increases house prices which increases the tax base which increases funding for social programs (like the GRT and LRT and community centres and libraries). This is a good thing.
Higher wages mean lessened pressure keeping _all_ prices down. This means inflation. This means less buying power for those who can least afford to have less buying power (including those recently out of manufacturing labourer jobs). This is a bad thing.
So what do you believe is more important? What do you believe will win out? What is a worse bad and which is a better good?
Is structural unemployment permanent or frictional? Is this part of a larger trend for increased wages for all (prosperity, progress), or is it a step towards greater income inequality (wealth disparity, class war)?
I don't have the numbers to find out. I'm not sure if it's even possible, as this is basically trying to predict the future.
We're all wrong just as far as we're all right. Now is too late to be talking about whether it is good or bad. Now is the time we should be asking those who this helped to assist those who this hurt. Because there are plenty of both.