AXEC: New Foundations of Economics: Search results for title:wage-led

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query title:wage-led. Sort by date Show all posts

September 9, 2018

No doubts about wage-led growth

Comment on Chris Dillow on ‘Doubts About Wage-led Growth’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Sep 12

Chris Dillow asks: “The question here, then, is: can we have wage-led growth, whereby higher wages trigger growth and productivity improvements? Or do we need profit-led growth, in which firms are induced to invest by high profit margins?”

The question shows that Chris Dillow lacks true employment and profit theory. Therefore, there is not much use to refute his wish-washy in great detail.

To cut the meticulous formal derivation short, an elementary version of the axiomatically correct systemic Employment Law is shown under the label of Grapic AXEC62: #1, #2, #3, #4

From this equation follows inter alia:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρ_E leads to higher employment L (the Greek letter ρ stands for ratio).
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment.
(iii) An increase in the factor cost ratio ρ_F≡W/PR leads to higher employment.

The complete Employment Law is a bit longer and contains, in addition, profit distribution, the public budget, and import/export.

Items (i) and (ii) are familiar since Keynes. But Keynesian macroeconomics is incomplete. The correct employment multiplier is composed of the expenditure ratio and the factor cost ratio. The ratio ρ_F as defined in (iii) embodies the price mechanism. It works such that overall employment INCREASES if the average wage rate W INCREASES relative to average price P and productivity R.

The Employment Law tells one that there are multiple policy levers, i.e., independent variables on the right-hand side of the =sign. What has to be done is to combine demand-led and wage-led expansion in order to get out of unemployment. All determinants have to be dealt with separately. Focusing on the macroeconomic price-mechanism, the variable ρ_F tells one unambiguously that the (average) wage rate must grow faster than the combination of price and productivity in order to increase overall employment. #5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Demand-led and wage-led growth
#2 NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculia
#3 You have the data, here is the Employment Law
#4 For more details, see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve
#5 Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law

December 17, 2017

Demand-led and wage-led growth

Comment on Peter Cooper on ‘A Notion of Demand-Led Growth’

Blog-Reference

Peter Cooper argues within the Keynesian framework: “The Keynesian or Kaleckian view is that normally the economy is operating inside the ultimate supply limit to a degree that is determined by demand. The economy is therefore regarded as demand constrained under normal circumstances.”

Peter Cooper has not realized that Keynesian and Kaleckian macro is already dead for 80+ years.

Keynes defined the formal foundations of the General Theory as follows: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63) This elementary two-liner is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit. (Tómasson et al.) Kalecki’s profit theory is not any better. #1 Because neither pro- nor anti-Keynesians realized the lethal methodological blunder, After-Keynesian employment theory is false until this very day. #2

To cut the meticulous formal derivation short, an elementary version of the axiomatically correct systemic Employment Law is shown on Graphic AXEC62:

From this equation follows
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρ_E leads to higher employment L (the Greek letter ρ stands for ratio). An expenditure ratio ρ_E>1 indicates credit expansion, a ratio ρ_E<1 indicates credit contraction of the household sector.
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment; a slowdown in growth does the opposite.
(iii) An increase in the factor cost ratio ρ_F≡W/PR leads to higher employment.

The complete Employment Law is a bit longer and contains, in addition, profit distribution, public deficit spending, and import/export. The Employment Law is composed of measurable real and nominal variables and is therefore testable.

Items (i) and (ii) are familiar since Keynes. But Keynesian macro is incomplete. The correct employment multiplier is composed of the expenditure ratio and the factor cost ratio. The ratio ρ_F, as defined in (iii), embodies the price mechanism. It works such that overall employment INCREASES if the average wage rate W INCREASES relative to the average price P and productivity R.

So, there are two policy levers, and what has to be done is to combine demand-led and wage-led expansion in order to get out of unemployment. The post-Keynesian preoccupation with demand is ultimately ineffective because each increase in the expenditure ratio can be counteracted by a decrease in the factor cost ratio. Therefore, economic policy must control both ratios.

The bottom line is that Peter Cooper’s post is a senseless repetition of arguments that were already false 80+ years ago. #3

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 What is Wrong with Heterodox Economics? Kalecki’s Profit Theory as an Example
#2 Keynes’ Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster
#3 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Employment

Related 'Robots, exploitation, and the reproducible economy' and 'Settling the Phillips Curve for good' and 'Full employment through the price mechanism' and 'NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculia'.

August 9, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Wage-led growth

#LearnEconomics

Some folks finally catch on to the correct macro #EmploymentTheory.

No doubts about wage-led growthhttps://t.co/gdmaSVVIRt

Demand-led and wage-led growthhttps://t.co/4oIj3LOK2y

NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculiahttps://t.co/qDrdo8Hdey
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 9, 2021

For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve.

January 1, 2015

NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculia

Comment on Lars Syll on 'NAIRU theory — closer to religion than science'

Blog-Reference

The original Phillips Curve was about the relation between the rate of unemployment and the rate of change of the wage rate (Phillips, 1958). Phillips studied more than a century's worth of data and established a stable inverse relation for the United Kingdom. Phillips' original curve was a remarkable empirical finding. It has to be emphasized that Phillips ‘had not made an explicit link between inflation and unemployment’. (Ormerod, 1994, p. 120)

The original curve was transformed by Samuelson/Solow with the simple formula: rate of inflation = rate of wage growth − rate of productivity growth (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1998, p. 590). This formula, according to Samuelson an ‘important piece of inflation arithmetic’, says that price inflation runs in tandem with wage inflation and that both have basically the same effect on employment, respectively, the rate of unemployment. The difference between the original and the bastard Phillips Curve consisted of a 1 percent productivity growth. This naive calculation led to the far-reaching policy conclusion that there exists an exploitable trade-off between inflation and unemployment.

Needless to say, this basic version experienced refinement, reinterpretation, and qualification in the sequel. It was completely overlooked in the ensuing filibuster, though, that, to begin with, Samuelson's arithmetic was fallacious.

The problem, however, runs much deeper. The Phillips Curve has always been discussed in terms of supply-demand-equilibrium on the labor market as if this were a correct formal representation. Things became worse with the introduction of expectations.

Fundamental to the Phillips Curve discussion is a host of behavioral assumptions. What has been overlooked is that the monetary economy has some objective structural properties. Whatever the agents think, plan, expect, or do, they cannot incapacitate structural laws.

The macroeconomic Employment Law takes the form of the structural-systemic Phillips Curve (2012, eq. (33) and Graphic AXEC36b)

It says:

An increase in the average wage rate leads to higher employment, i.e. to a lower unemployment rate. This is in accordance with the correlation of Phillips' original study.
A price increase is conducive to lower employment. This is in discordance with the Samuelson-Solow version of the Phillips Curve, that is, with the trade-off between unemployment and inflation. The stagflation of the 1970s is generally seen as an empirical refutation of the neoclassical synthesis version of the Phillips Curve. This refutation of ‘perverted’ Keynesian economics (Davidson, 2009, pp. 18-20) indirectly corroborates the structural-systemic Phillips Curve, which explicitly predicts stagflation.
Provided that wage rate, price, and distributed profit all change with the same rate (between zero and infinite percent in the simplified case), there is NO effect on employment at all. This is in accordance with the NAIRU and rational expectations interpretation of the Phillips Curve, i.e., in this case, the Phillips Curve is vertical. The structural Phillips Curve explains verticality without recourse to expectations (rational or otherwise) or any other behavioral assumption.

The structural-systemic Phillips Curve consists of measurable variables and is therefore readily testable against the familiar versions. Behavioral assumptions are always beaten by structural-systemic laws. NAIRU is not close to religion; it is authentic proto-scientific garbage.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

References
Davidson, P. (2009). The Keynes Solution. The Path to Global Economic Prosperity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Keynes’ Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL
Ormerod, P. (1994). The Death of Economics. London: Faber and Faber.
Phillips, A. W. (1958). The Relation Between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957. Economica, 25: 283–299. URL
Samuelson, P. A., and Nordhaus, W. D. (1998). Economics. Boston, Burr Ridge, etc.: Irwin, McGraw-Hill, 16th edition.

Related 'Full employment through the price mechanism' and 'Mass unemployment: The joint failure of orthodox and heterodox economics' and 'NAIRU: an exhaustive dancing-angels-on-a-pinpoint blather' and 'Full employment, the Phillips Curve, and the end of Gaganomics' and 'NAIRU and the scientific incompetence of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy' and 'The flat-earth realism of economists' and 'The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids' and 'How to overcome the manifest silliness of Econ 101 and save the economy' and 'No doubts about wage-led growth' and 'Demand-led and wage-led growth' and 'Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law'. See also Lars Syll's blog here and here for wage-led growth. For details of the big picture, see Links on the Phillips Curve and cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve.

For more on wage-led growth, see AXECquery.

***

Twitter Mar 8, 2019

Source: Twitter

Twitter Oct 25, 2019

Twitter Feb 2, 2021

Twitter Oct 17, 2021

Twitter Jul 28, 2022

Twitter Oct 7, 2020

Twitter Nov 17, 2022 A question of causality

Twitter Dec 20, 2022 Note that wage increases and price increases do NOT work in the same direction but have OPPOSITE effects on employment/unemployment

Twitter/X Mai 5, 2025 Phillips' original relationship

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Knowledge only — no opinion

Science does not explain everything, but non-science explains nothing.

Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency.

Economists cannot explain how the economy works. The Profit Theory is false since Adam Smith. There is much opinion and little knowledge.

Opinion is the realm of political economics, knowledge is the realm of theoretical economics.

Political economics is scientifically worthless.

Theoretical economics is built upon clearly stated premises, i.e., upon a set of axioms.

Orthodoxy got the axiomatic foundations wrong and Heterodoxy has none at all.

Economics is a failed science. Economists are incompetent scientists.

Profit

Neither Classicals, nor Walrasians, nor Marshallians, nor Marxians, nor Keynesians, nor Institutionialists, nor Monetary Economists, nor MMTers, nor Austrians, nor Sraffaians, nor Evolutionists, nor Game theorists, nor EconoPhysicists, nor RBCers, nor New Keynesians, nor New Classicals ever came to grips with profit. Hence, they all fail to capture the essence of the market economy.

Because of this, economists have nothing to offer in the way of a scientifically founded economic policy guidance.

The hybrid science

As a first approximation, one can agree on the general characteristic that the economy is a complex system.

However, with the term system one usually associates a structure with components that are non-human. In order to stress the obvious fact that humans are an essential component of the economic system the market economy should be characterized more precisely as a complex hybrid human/system entity.

The scientific method is straightforwardly applicable to the sys-component but not to the hum-component. While it is clear that the economy always has to be treated as an indivisible whole, for good methodological reasons the analysis has to start with the objective system-component.

In gestalt-psychological terms the economic system is the foreground, individual behavior the background. Common sense wrongly insists that the hum-component must always be in the foreground. This fallacy compares to geo-centrism. The economic system has its own logic which is different from the behavioral logic of humans. The systemic logic is what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

There are systemic laws but no behavioral laws. Systemic laws have the same methodological status as physical laws.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy can tell what the systemic laws of the actual monetary economy are.

Whether the outcome of the human/system-interaction is good or bad is a politcal question that lies outside of theoretical economics. Theoretical economics explains how the actual economy works - no less, no more.

Narrative vs.Theory

Psychological, sociological or behavioral assumptionism cannot yield anything other than a gossip model of the world. Second-guessing the agents is not economic analysis.

Science deals exclusively with propositions that can in principle be decided by objective means. The rest is opinion, faith, phantasy, motive speculation, allegation, hallucination, myth, paranoia, ink-blot association, psychology, philosophy, in one word: storytelling.

Storytelling is the original mode of communication in the social realm — except science.

Political economics is storytelling and, by default, the natural habitat of confused confusers. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism are social narratives and not scientifically valid representations of reality.

"The truth is, most persons, not excepting professional economists, are satisfied with very hazy notions." (Fisher)

In marked contrast, theoretical economics lives up to the standards of material and formal consistency. A scientific theory is the best mental representation of reality that is humanly possible.

Theory starts with a set of objective and consistent axioms.

Paradigm Shift

"The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something — and that is not so easy." (Feynman)

"As will become evident, there is more agreement on the defects of orthodox theory than there is on what theory is to replace it: but all agreed that the point of the criticism is to clear the ground for construction." (Nell)

"The moral of the story is simply this: it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory." (Blaug)

"Is it not a fact, which stares at us from the histories of all sciences, that it is much more difficult for the human mind to forge the most elementary conceptual schemes than it is to elaborate the most complicated superstructure when those elements are well in hand?" (Schumpeter)

"The task of producing knowledge against the grain requires imagination." (Mirowski)

"A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination." (Feynman)

"The scientific imagination dreams of explanations and laws." (Peirce)

"It is brilliance of imagination which makes the glory of science." (Evans)

"... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ ... than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations." (Clower)

Selftest and to watch for

You apply one of these items

• supply-demand-equilibrium,

• general equilibrium,

• marginal utility,

• well-behaved production functions,

• total income = value of output,

• total income = wages + profits,

• I=S,

• wage rate down - employment up,

• behavioral axioms?

Then you are out of science because of unnoticed material or formal inconsistency.

Every economist who uses the concept of equilibrium is scientifically incompetent because she/he failed to notice that equilibrium is an economic nonentity.

Practically this means: as soon as the word equilibrium appears in an economic text it can be thrown into the waste basket. The same holds for all other nonentities.

The vast majority of economists deals mainly with nonentities. This is why Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is scientifically worthless.

Since Adam Smith, economic policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations.

To be replaced (1)

The core premises of Orthodoxy are uncertain and false and this fully explains the failure of the research program.

“As with any Lakatosian research program, the neo-Walrasian program is characterized by its hard core, heuristics, and protective belts. Without asserting that the following characterization is definitive, I have argued that the program is organized around the following propositions: HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)

The inescapable Paradigm Shift consists of the move from this obsolete hard core to the superior set of structural axioms.

To be replaced (2)

The fundamental equations of macroeconomics have been formulated by Keynes in two lines.

"Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment."

This elementary syllogism is demonstrably false. The demonstration consists in the proof that Keynes could not solve the Profit Puzzle. Neither did Post-Neo-New-Keynesians.

In the most general terms, the economics Paradigm Shift consists in switching from the behavior-centric bottom-up approach to the structure-centric top-down approach. This is comparable to the Copernican turn from geo-centrism to helio-centrism.

Consensus

Economics is a science without scientists. Because they are ignorant of the elementary difference between profit and income, the present generation of economists has not made and cannot make a significant contribution to the discussion about how the actual economy works.

Every orthodox or heterodox economist can convince himself/herself that their profit theory is defective.

Every non-economist can — by applying elementary logic — convince himself that conventional profit theories are false. See 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down'.

Because the profit theory is false the whole of conventional economic theory has to be rejected.

"What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse." (McCauley)

No scientist will ever accept Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, or Austrianism. These approaches are logically and/or empirically refuted. This is the actual methodological state-of-art. Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, or Austrians are still at the proto-scientific stage. These approaches cannot be improved, only abandoned.

Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.

About me

“Bottom line is that your profit law is just a definition you made up nobody else agrees with, nobody. You are all alone with your precious tautology.” Barkley Rosser

“In any event, your entire theory is based on you doing macro accounting in wacky fashion that nobody agrees with.” Brian Romanchuk

"Your stuff is at least original: it's quite cool after a couple of decades at this to see a fresh Economics. But real promises are not advanced: they were around for millennia until the Greeks obscured them with Metaphysics." Chris Cook

"No mate, they're you-blockers. You have all the personality traits of a crank, and the rest of them have tired of you. You could be 100% right, and you'd still die as your only follower." Steve Keen

"What you are doing fills is all with joy, your constructive critique is most welcome!"

Achim Truger,

German Council of Economic Experts,

in a failed attempt to be ironic

"200+ years of thought and yet you are the only one who gets it—or even understands your argument. Thank god we have you, pseudonymous Twitter user. Otherwise no one would know."

William Luther

Assistant Professor of Economics

in a failed attempt to be funny

"Egmonts profit law is the perfect equation that demonstrates this in action. Put the equation into a spreadsheet and then add government spending and watch how it flows into profits. Enter in some debt (-Sm) and watch too how that flows into profits. It can't go anywhere else."

Dean

About the rest of economics

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent. Economics is a failed science.

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” Leonardo da Vinci

In economics, the overwhelming majority belongs to Class III. This explains why economics is after 200+ years still at the proto-scientific level.

The obvious task for every economist is to advance from cargo cult science and political agenda-pushing to science. This is absolutely beyond the means of Class III people.

For 200+ years now, economists are not scientists but agenda pushers, useful idiots, clowns in the political Circus Maximus.

Nopopop

This blog does not add to any popular/un- popular opinion.

This blog does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup of society, to get out of national/global depression, nor about how to save humankind or any subgroup thereof.

This blog is about the true theory of the actual monetary economy.

"In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion." (Stigum)

Focus

Science is of primary interest and importance. Scientists are of secondary interest.

With regard to science, most people lose focus easily because of a natural preference for anecdotes and gossip over facts or subjectivity over objectivity.

Hence, Schumpeter once considered it necessary to remind his habitually disoriented fellow economists: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”

Science is about true/false and nothing else.

Disclaimer

Missing Blog-Reference links: AXEC does not guarantee that their comments can at any time be recovered from where they have been posted intitially because the availability depends on the publication policy of the blog owner which is implicitly accepted on entering a debate. See also: 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?'

Texts: Parts of arbitrary length of any of the author's texts is and will be used again by the author in papers, books, websites, blogs, and other media without explicit reference. The right to make corrections or minor textual improvements on reutilization is reserved. Therefore, it is always a good idea to double-check for the latest version.

Caution: Do not expect a corroboration of your political view. Neither a refutation. Political economics has been scientifically worthless since Adam Smith. Politics has to be separated from economics because it is categorically different from science. The best science can do and has always done is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have been objectively wrong or ignorant until now. Science goes beyond the naive common sense of today and becomes the sophisticated common sense of tomorrow.

See also Terms of Use and Legal at www.AXEC.org

Outlook

To recall, while political economics is storytelling, theoretical economics adheres to scientific standards.

The first task of theoretical economics is to get the axiomatic foundations right. This is what J. S. Mill called the opus magnum. Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy came up with a reasonable solution to this day. This explains the secular stagnation of economics.

There is no serious alternative to structural axiomatic economics. This is not a matter of opinion but of proof. The sole criteria are material and formal consistency.

All of economics has to be reconstructed from the ground up.

Major economic policy implication

The price mechanism does not work as standard economics hypothesizes. The axiom-based Employment Law states that overall employment increases if the average wage rate increases relative to average price and productivity. This gives one the lever to improve the employment situation all over the world and to fend off deflation without rising debt and without artificial capacity growth. To increase the average price relative to the average wage rate and productivity increases unemployment.

Right policy depends on true theory.

“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)

Lacking the true theory, economists promote for more than 200 years opinion instead of knowledge.