Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (919125)	2/4/2016 11:36:12 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Recommended By i-node TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574059

Who says we were going to get 1.6M new workers? No one and nothing. There is no way to be that specific on an issue like this, it was an example. But common sense, historical observation, economic theory, and economic studies, suggest that higher prices reduce quantity demanded. Were 1000 jobs lost, 10,000,100,000, 500,000? No way to know for sure, but its close to certain that some jobs were lost. but the extra money in circulation That money was transferred not created. If it was actual new money, an increase in the effective money supply, then that could help during the depths of a downturn (depending on the exact nature of, and situation in the downturn, but 1 - 2014 was well in to the expansion, not the depths of the recession. 2 - During the depths of a recession, where increasing the money supply could be useful, increasing wages is particularly likely to be harmful. The fact that wages don't adjust downwards very readily is one of the reasons you have reduced employment and a deeper recession when times get bad. That's mainstream Keynesian theory (not that other schools disagree with the idea that pushing wages up in bad times is likely to be bad for employment).