While we’re off-topicking this post, and in the vein of stuff-I’d-probably-pay-you-for-if-it-was-easy, I’d be interested in Tim’s take on Chris’s ‘defence’ of globalization here (or rather on his list of alternative culprits)
Hmm, well, my arguing economics with Chris is one of those things where I’m not going to come off well. The reference is to this post.
And my problem is that I disagree with the basic premise. I don’t think real wages have fallen in the first place. I agree that inequality has increased, that certain wages have stood still over the decades. But not that real wages have fallen for any interestingly significant group.
Thus the why real wages have fallen for some groups argument doesn’t make sense to me.
For example, WhatsApp for a time there charged no fee and carried no advertising. So, we’ve three ways of measuring GDP. Production – WhatsApp appears as zero here. Consumption – zero again. Only in incomes does it appear, the whatever, $20 million a year the engineers were getting paid.
And yet 1 billion people were getting some or all of their telecoms needs from WhatsApp.
We’re not measuring GDP right in this digital age – real wages are not falling.