I’ve periodically explained that capital formation (more machines, technology, etc) is necessary if we want higher wages.
Simply stated, workers get paid on the basis of what they produce and the most effective way of boosting productivity is to have more saving and investment.
This is (one of the reasons) why I have so much disdain for politicians who try to foment discord and division between workers and capitalists.
To be sure, there will always be a tug of war between investors and employees over which group gets bigger or smaller slices. But so long as we have the right policies, they’ll be bickering over how to divide an ever-growing pie.
That’s a nice problem to have. Especially compared to what happens when politicians intervene – for the ostensible purpose of helping workers – and adopt policies that create economic stagnation.
Larry Reed of the Foundation for Economic Education wrote with great insight about the link between labor and capital a few years ago. He starts with some basic economics.
…as complementary factors of production, labor and capital are not only indispensable but hugely dependent upon each other as well. Capital without labor means machines with no operators, or financial resources without the manpower to invest in. Labor without capital looks like Haiti or North Korea:
plenty of people working but doing it with sticks instead of bulldozers, or starting a small enterprise with pocket change instead of a bank loan. …There may be no place in the world where there’s a shortage of labor but every inch of the planet is short of capital. There is no worker who couldn’t become more productive and better himself and society in the process if he had a more powerful labor-saving machine or a little more venture funding behind him. It ought to be abundantly clear that the vast improvement in standards of living over the past century is not explained by physical labor (we actually do less of that), but rather to the application of capital.
He concludes that we should be celebrating Labor Day and Capital Day.
I’m not “taking sides” between labor and capital. I don’t see them as natural antagonists in spite of some people’s attempts to make them so. Don’t think of capital as something possessed and deployed only by bankers, the college-educated, the rich, or the elite. We workers of all income levels are “capital-ists” too—every time we save and invest, buy a share of stock, fix a machine, or start a business. …I’ve traditionally celebrated labor on Labor Day weekend—not organized labor or compulsory labor unions, mind you, but the noble act of physical labor to produce the things we want and need. …on Labor Day weekend, I’ll also be thinking about the remarkable achievements of inventors of labor-saving devices, the risk-taking venture capitalists who put their own money (not your tax money) on the line and the fact that nobody in America has to dig a ditch with a spoon or cut his lawn with a knife. …Labor Day and Capital Day. I know of no good reason why we should have just one and not the other.
Courtesy of Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute, here’s a nice depiction of how labor and capital are interdependent.
P.S. When economists write about the relationship between capital and labor (savings => investment => productivity => wages), some critics assert this is nothing other than “trickle-down economics.”
Yet this is the mechanism for growth under every economic theory – even Marxism and socialism. The only thing that changes under those approaches is that politicians and bureaucrats control investment decisions. And we know that doesn’t work very well.
[…] it’s not easy to get them to understand that labor and capital are complementary factors of production (apologies for the economic […]
[…] In my fantasy country of Libertaria, there is no Department of Labor, no regulation of employment contracts between consenting adults, and no favoritism for either labor or management. […]
[…] In some sense, this is simply the common-sense observation that you can’t consume (or redistribute) unless someone first produces. […]
[…] In some sense, this is simply the common-sense observation that you can’t consume (or redistribute) unless someone first produces. […]
[…] that path in the future is to eliminate or restrict such powers. Private markets, which reflect the preferences of consumers, should determine the allocation of capital. We don’t want to copy the mistakes of China and […]
[…] if bureaucrats are overpaid? For the simple reason that an economy’s output is a function of the quality and quantity of labor and capital. So it stands to reason that economic performance will suffer if excessive compensation lures […]
[…] early September, I wrote about how capital and labor are both necessary to create […]
[…] I decided to edit the Bloomberg chart so that is gives us an idea of how the economy will be […]
[…] bottom line is that you can’t punish capital without simultaneously punishing […]
it would be interesting to have Dr. Mitchell write a HS Economics text book… a lot of younger people have some really twisted views of how the economy works and the effect it has to our quality of life… by all rights… if our educational system was functioned properly… and our young people had a reality based view of economics… there is no way they would give the likes of the elderly bern anything but a swift kick in the backside… but the myth of the fixed pie survives… and the youngsters believe that if a person is successful… they are evil… and have made their fortune by abusing others… thus it is fair and just to take their money by force… and redistribute it to those less fortunate… people like themselves for example… it’s social justice… forget that they are eating domestic animals in Caracas… rodent stew with tree bark in North Korea… and let’s not talk about socialism’s body count…
I might add that companies are always attempting to make jobs easier, to improve productivity. At the low end that means jobs are easily transferable. At the high end, jobs are becoming more complicated. That’s one reason for the “inequality” in salaries.
Agree with Chuck.
I would add that the worker on the job has a training advantage, in that the company invests in the worker, who becomes more productive. If someone can walk in and do the same job, salaries might not go up. But as functions become more complicated, the company has more and more of an investment in the existing worker and salaries will rise.
This is even more the case if the trained worker can take his/her skills to another organization or transfer some of the knowledge gained.
In a no growth environment, there are no skills to utilize or pass on.
Chuck,
You are right that supply and demand play a role in compensation, but you understate the importance of productivity. If Group A employees are 100 times more productive than Group B employees, they can be paid roughly 100 times more. But they won’t be paid 100 times more if they’re only two times more productive. That’s because productivity creates the wealth that supply and demand can fight over. But the first and most important task is to CREATE THE WEALTH. That’s why Dan is correct in saying that productivity drives wages.
[…] … and Daniel Mitchell: […]
Re: “Simply stated, workers get paid on the basis of what they produce and the most effective way of boosting productivity is to have more saving and investment.”
Wrong! In a market economy, prices of everything including labor are set based on supply and demand. So if a worker is producing a lot but a lot of people could do the same work, she’s not going to be highly paid. That’s not to say that productivity isn’t important. It is important.
Other than that one sentence, the rest of the article is spot on.