Comments by "Jamiel De Abrew" (@JamielDeAbrew) on "Is the GREAT RESIGNATION a DANGER for the UNITED STATES? - VisualEconomik EN" video.

Imagine an organisation goes the automation route. They need fewer employees. Since the employees are more productive, they can pay them more. Since their processes are more efficient, they can have cheaper goods/services. Now the higher paid employees spend more. This creates new jobs. The people/organisations that enjoyed the lower prices can afford to buy additional goods/services. This creates new jobs. The main way this backfires is if all the money stays with the owners of the company. And they just buy bitcoin or bid up the price of a painting at auction. If they were to invest in more businesses, they would still create more jobs.
4
@badluck5647 there is a cost to increasing worker efficiency - eg a new tool, machine or computer. Even paying for a software update. If workers aren’t paid much, it may be cheaper to pay workers for more hours than to invest in improving productivity. You may argue that in the right labour market, workers don’t work as hard and that reduces productivity. Even if that was true… Once these productivity investments are made, the money is spent. So if the labour market changed in the future, we’d definitely be left with a more productive workforce.
3
@fturatti unless you first secure a new job and then quit your old job.
3
@badluck5647 have you thought about the impacts of inequality on inflation? ‘Economies of scale’ drive down prices. Eg using machines in factories rather than making custom products. Wealth inequality leads to a greater diversity of goods and services. Many things the wealthy purchase are not produced at scale. Items the poor purchase aren’t built to last. When these items are thrown away, it is an inefficient use of the worlds resources. And this also puts upward pressure on the price of resources.
2
Maybe. But don’t ignore this benefit… with fewer people driving or taking public transport, governments can reduce spending in these areas. With better digital systems, companies can spend less money flying their employees around.
2
@fturatti people aren’t quitting their job to be unemployed. They are simply moving from job A to job B. They’re working the market. Also, if a person sells their lunch to buy their dinner, is the equation - 1 meal + 1 meal = 0 meals
1
@badluck5647 I agree with you that competition can help to increase product lifespans. That said, competition when driving down prices can also reduce products lifespans. Government legislation can increase product life spans too. You’re right that some premium items don’t necessarily have longer lifespans eg high thread count fabrics. The economy of scale for parts in a Bentley or Ferrari is less than a Toyota. The design costs are spread across fewer units sold. There is zero scale with paintings sold at premium auction houses. Holiday homes are an inefficient use of land, labour and resources (assuming they sit empty when not being used by the owner). Luxury fashion houses limit the supply of their goods. This means design costs are spread across fewer sales.
1
@sstff6771 mostly yes but not always. There are many that work for less because they like the work.
1
@darrinscott6612 agreed. Hopefully people first secure a new (better paying) job and then quit their job. It’s great when employees can work the market.
1
@tomlxyz it’s easier to change jobs when the unemployment rate is low and the number of advertised jobs is high.
1