* If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that.
* If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law.
* If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest )
* if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.
If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible?
Mea culpas are more convincing when there's some kind of contrition. An intellectually honest person would at least nod towards having a change of heart, updated opinions.
Shoutouts to Liberal (neoliberal?) economists like Ruchir Sharma is progress. Of course, I hope Friedman ventures outside of the Mises vs Keynes food fight. I find Raj Chetty and David Graeber interesting, for instance.
Edit:
Oops. Looks like a "contrarian" economist Sharma is something like a deficit hawk. I regret my suspension of disbelief.
The Rescues Ruin Capitalism [2020/06/24] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
All you really need to judge a Tom Friedman article is the "Opinion columnist" badge by his name.
What does he produce? He produces opinion. By what metric are his opinion pieces judged? Engagement.
Tom Friedman - and for that matter, most other opinion columnists (excepting those who are practicing domain experts who occasionally write about those specific subjects) - isn't paid to be right. He can be wrong over, and over, and over again. If the orthodoxy of the group who employs him changes (hey, look who's buying NYT subscriptions these days...) he can be wrong in novel ways. He doesn't have to "show his work." He never suffers any consequences.
He might have re-evaluated things! He might even be right - because hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day! But knowing what his job is and how he's performed in the past, it should be apparent that there's no particular reason one should believe him over, say, a random commenter on HackerNews such as myself. He has no incentive, credentials, or history that suggest a reader could usefully appeal to his authority.
Are you kinda also thinking of Milton Friedman? Thomas Friedman isn't actually an economist.
Please explain how you know this. Was there ever any bottom at all for the cost of low-skilled labor?
More people means more workers, generally, I accept that. But more people also means more consumption, generally. And that requires more labor. Surely you don't think that normal population growth implies cheaper labor, right?
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/site...
Where I live low skilled labor is paid well simply because otherwise you wont find anyone who wants to do the job. That is how it should work, educate everyone and there will be a shortage of low skill labor driving up their wages.
- Many overseas markets opened to more outsourcing. Nixon "going to China" was one of the big ones.
- The rest of the world had pretty much fully recovered from WWII and started being more competitive with US manufacturing.
- The collapse of Bretton Woods and the removal of the gold peg for the US dollar freed central banks to pursue aggressive monetary policy.
- Automation really took off in the 1970s, and the computer revolution really got going.
- Women entered the work force in large numbers. In case anyone misreads: I am not against this. I'm just pointing out the supply and demand effects.
- Unions started declining for numerous reasons including the rise of anti-union politics and corruption in unions themselves.
- Increased racial equality is another thing I'm not against, but I am forced to point out that it increases the supply of labor in many labor markets that had been at least partly closed to non-whites.
- Finally, more immigration is definitely on the list too.
... there's a lot more, but those are the big ones. Almost everything I listed is deflationary to labor prices. So many things hit in the 70s it's like the floor dropped out. It's amazing US labor has managed to hang on at all.
Imo wage stagnation in the US seems to be far more attributable to deregulation, decline of unions and pressure from public companies to constantly cut costs to justify rising stock prices.
I am not exactly sure when it started, but if the topic is immigration impact on stagnating wages, I believe unless I am mistaken that the US-Mexico border was in fact a lot more open up to the 50’s, at least for cheap seasonal agricultural workers, until an ex marine general took over immigration enforcement sometime in the 60’s (or maybe 70’s?) with the perverse effect of forcing more seasonal immigrants to stay rather than risk going back home and not being able to come back.
However, the wealthy love this policy. Cheaper labor to build their homes, mow their lawns, clean their homes, and staff their low skill employment needs both at home and their businesses.
True, but I would say better late than never.
Are they not the last person that should do that job given that they are the only ones that have proven that that they cannot?