r/AskEconomics

A very common mantra in even the less raggy journalism — the economist, the NYT podcasts, foreign affairs etc all often seem to include this in their analysis of XYZ topic or paradigm, as something that is obviously true and meaningful without any need for discussion. Even other academic disciplines like history and anthro, at least in their consumer books, reference this paradigm axiomatically. This is obviously a very broad question, as different parts of the economy have been and will be impacted differently by technology and globalization, and how we measure “better off” has to encompass real wages but also tech availability / progress, benefits, etc.. what should I read on this topic or how should I go about thinking about this? I have an undergrad in Econ (and math, but that was a different time) so can engage with some level of academic content

If petroyuan happens, how will it affect the global economy? since the chinese governement isn't printing infinite amount, and the volume of yuan currencies outside of their government isn't as big as the dollar.

I don't recall where I saw this claim, but I'm assuming their definition of "living wage" is something along the lines of "able to cover 25th percentile costs for housing, food, healthcare, and transportation".

Is looking at real compensation over time a fair way to quickly assess this claim? Or would it be more accurate to look at consumption baskets over time (though I'm not sure how you adjust for quality in things like healthcare)?

Which of them has the highest potential for growth? I assume is Spain.

I've been going on to do research about what the pass-through of employer-side payroll taxes would be to the final wages of the worker in question. This study intrigued me greatly, as it provides evidence that the tax-incidence is dependent on what they call the "tax-benefit linkage". It overall challenged the seemingly common belief that nearly (if not all) of the employer-side payroll tax, ultimately falls onto the worker, in the form of lower wages.

---

That got me wondering on what the tax-incidence would be on employer-side payroll contributions, if said contributions were going into mandatory savings accounts (I support some pretty steep payroll taxes to fund mandatory savings accounts; several reasons for it, but I won't get into it).

The study seems to effectively state, whether deliberately or not, that it's about perception. The higher payroll taxes to fund greater pension payouts, for example, seems to mean a reduced pressure for higher wages today, since the greater pension payout in the future, would (at least, appears to) significantly/completely make-up for reduced wages in the present/throughout the employee's working life.

Assuming my interpretation is correct: I question if there would be similar pass-through, from a mandatory savings scheme. On the one hand: Higher payroll tax would equal higher payouts in the long-term. But, at the same time: It would only grow from you contributing your own wages. So, the final amount you have, is entirely tied to how much you have saved during your working life.

This would, at least I believe, result in workers not being willing to tolerate a significant reduction wages. The defined-benefit scheme, "externalizes" the risk of financial insecurity; so, people don't end up really thinking about having more money in the short-term, in order to build up their own safety-net in the long term. Meanwhile, with a defined-contribution scheme, it "personalizes" the risk of financial insecurity; so, people are now directly thinking about how much they're earning now, and have a very heavy incentive to maximize how much they're saving (and thus: How much they're earning). This "fear-driven saving", as I'll call it, seems to be corroborated by the data we have on personal savings rates, unemployment rate data and their (at least, seemingly) heavy correlation between economic downturns, and elevated savings rates.

---

But maybe I'm way off base here. I'm not exactly an economist; I've just read many economic/economics-related studies and articles to self-educate myself to the level of understand I have today. So, I look to properly certified people, to see if my assumption/"theory" has any merit.

We're going to shamelessly steal adapt from /r/AskHistorians the idea of a weekly thread to gather and recognize the good answers posted on the sub. Good answers take time to type and the mods can be slow to approve things which means that sometimes good content doesn't get seen by as many people as it should. This thread is meant to fix that gap.

Post answers that you enjoyed, felt were particularly high quality, or just didn't get the attention they deserved. This is a weekly recurring thread posted every Sunday morning.

Will it affect its ability to compete with the rivals. If so, how and to what extent?

I’m trying to understand the difference between economic growth and economic development in a more formal way.

From what I understand:

• Economic growth refers to an increase in output, often measured using real GDP or real per capita income.
• Economic development seems to include broader aspects like improvements in well-being and structural changes in the economy.

My question is:

👉 In economic theory, how exactly are these two concepts distinguished?
👉 Are they treated as separate concepts, or is development considered an extension of growth?

I’m looking for a clear conceptual or theoretical explanation rather than examples.

Instead of Japanese companies buying up golf courses and art (bubble behavior), they would have been forced to move factories overseas much earlier (to places like Southeast Asia) to stay competitive.

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, if not perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

I thought of a solution (about 25 years ago) to a plethora of professional sports league issues regarding their CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement). I believe the idea is unpatentable, but I guess I'd still like credit for it before I just toss it to the world for free. Thanks for any and all suggestions.

Energy companies can now double profits, perhaps treble. Same as when the main egg co. saw 350% boost of net profit in hundreds of millions per quarter, during the egg scare.

We have monopoly and price fixing laws, it appears that a sweeping constitutional safeguard against scare based profit mechanisms, given that worst-case futures betting on scares, can reduce risk of pan-industrial recession.

What kinds of the laws should governments have to protect the general economy?

Or it's because most of the capitalist countries at that time still very much brutal, right after WW2 after all the suffering cause by Nazi Germany they come back to invade and recolonization their formal slavery territory.

I mean, Portugal was still trying to enslave people in its colonies until the 1970s, and France returned to Indochina to impose domination right after their own people had suffered under Nazi Germany.

Which gave the Soviet Union the justification of what they did and they believe their economic role model is morally right and integrity