Why do we need a new study to prove basic economic principles?
Adam Smith was talking about this in Wealth of Nations for fuck's sake:
>“Though the wealth of a country should be very great, yet if it has been long stationary, we must not expect to find the wages of labour very high in it. The funds destined for the payment of wages, the revenue and stock of its inhabitants, may be of the greatest extent; but if they have continued for several centuries of the same, or very nearly of the same extent, the number of labourers employed every year could easily supply, and even more than supply, the number wanted the following year. “
>“There could seldom be any scarcity of hands, nor could the masters be obliged to bid against one another in order to get them. The hands, on the contrary, would, in this case, naturally multiply beyond their employment. There would be a constant scarcity of employment, and the labourers would be obliged to bid against one another in order to get it.”
David Ricardo later "fixed" the parts of Smith's theory Marx and Engels intentionally twisted.
This has been settled economic truth since THE BEGINNING of modern economics, yet here we still are, arguing whether the gov't should force Micky D's to pay their unga bungas $15/hr when WE ALL KNOW they will just fire employees, invest in automation, and raise the prices on Big Macs.
Amen Patriot, they just refuse to get it. and you are right, no secret, robots will replace them as you pointed out, then what are they going to do ??
(post is archived)