These paradoxes are a lot of fun. In this case, the paradox in essence says that under some circumstances there isn't a limitless amount of work to be done, so if people try to work harder aggregate employment can't rise.
As with the paradox of thrift this exposes the essential madness of modern politics, modern economics and indeed modern humans. Most people would much rather be lounging around comfortably all day than working. It would be better if the economy let people lounge around all day and only work every so often to secure what they need to live comfortably. Employment for the sake of goosing the statistics is profoundly wasteful.
It may be a sign of how early economics is as a science, and how much of it is simply wrong. Often physics and philosophy has moved forward by the resolution of a paradox, like Russell's and Zeno's. Behavioural economics resolves many classical economic paradoxes. Paradox indicates an oversimplified model.
8 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 18.5 ms ] threadAs with the paradox of thrift this exposes the essential madness of modern politics, modern economics and indeed modern humans. Most people would much rather be lounging around comfortably all day than working. It would be better if the economy let people lounge around all day and only work every so often to secure what they need to live comfortably. Employment for the sake of goosing the statistics is profoundly wasteful.
Feels a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
What if physics took this stance? We'd have the paradox of Newton, the paradox of Faraday, etc.