The scarcer employees get, the more will employers be willing to pay to get them.
So yes, I think the liquidity of employees will remain roughly the same.
I forgot to mention something in my last post. It isn't so much the assumption of liquidity, but the assumption that given the particular kind of liquidity, the efficiency (in terms of opportunity cost) can be the same.
When I said liquidity of human capital, I did not want to mean person P moves from company X to company Y. I wanted to mean person P's production power (in terms of output, factoring in creativity, and the myriad of other factors), within the system (which also factors in P's capacity to induce disruptive changes) gets transferred seamlessly from X to Y. Again, this does not seem at all possible. Neither does this factor in effects of people spontaneously regrouping (i.e. forming startups). Having people in stable structures inherently slows down regrouping quickly, and you cannot assume that capital (money, enticement, whatever) can induce it to become efficient, simply because transfer of resources takes time and distance.
Of course, with the ideal assumptions of perfect information and instantaneous transfer of all resources, this would seem to work, but these are the same assumptions that ground many economic models permanently in theoretical territory.
Now, is there still a good reason to think the systems can be the same?
"Having people in stable structures inherently slows down regrouping quickly, and you cannot assume that capital (money, enticement, whatever) can induce it to become efficient, simply because transfer of resources takes time and distance."
So you argue that having some people unemployed will in the long run prove more profitable for the economy?
Then inevitable a market will evolve around this and someone will come around and pay people to remain unemployed (possibly requiring a fee when they finally take a job).
"Of course, with the ideal assumptions of perfect information and instantaneous transfer of all resources, this would seem to work, but these are the same assumptions that ground many economic models permanently in theoretical territory."
If you're strictly talking about the real world, then I agree that unemployment will never reach zero and that it may be true that having unemployment may lead to more economic growth. But it may also lead to less growth. We can't be sure. Therefore we have to assume some kind of ideal model.
I'm actually not making any argument about profitability in the long run. Simply about whether swombat's comment about missed opportunities, or your comment that there won't be missed opportunities, holds.
I am now able to see how your situation would work, so I will abandon my deep skepticism. But I have also come think it's far more complex than any of these comments. They now both seem plausible, and I don't think either of you can be certain without substantial justification. :D
Comments
The scarcer employees get, the more will employers be willing to pay to get them. So yes, I think the liquidity of employees will remain roughly the same.
I forgot to mention something in my last post. It isn't so much the assumption of liquidity, but the assumption that given the particular kind of liquidity, the efficiency (in terms of opportunity cost) can be the same.
When I said liquidity of human capital, I did not want to mean person P moves from company X to company Y. I wanted to mean person P's production power (in terms of output, factoring in creativity, and the myriad of other factors), within the system (which also factors in P's capacity to induce disruptive changes) gets transferred seamlessly from X to Y. Again, this does not seem at all possible. Neither does this factor in effects of people spontaneously regrouping (i.e. forming startups). Having people in stable structures inherently slows down regrouping quickly, and you cannot assume that capital (money, enticement, whatever) can induce it to become efficient, simply because transfer of resources takes time and distance.
Of course, with the ideal assumptions of perfect information and instantaneous transfer of all resources, this would seem to work, but these are the same assumptions that ground many economic models permanently in theoretical territory.
Now, is there still a good reason to think the systems can be the same?
"Having people in stable structures inherently slows down regrouping quickly, and you cannot assume that capital (money, enticement, whatever) can induce it to become efficient, simply because transfer of resources takes time and distance."
So you argue that having some people unemployed will in the long run prove more profitable for the economy? Then inevitable a market will evolve around this and someone will come around and pay people to remain unemployed (possibly requiring a fee when they finally take a job).
"Of course, with the ideal assumptions of perfect information and instantaneous transfer of all resources, this would seem to work, but these are the same assumptions that ground many economic models permanently in theoretical territory."
If you're strictly talking about the real world, then I agree that unemployment will never reach zero and that it may be true that having unemployment may lead to more economic growth. But it may also lead to less growth. We can't be sure. Therefore we have to assume some kind of ideal model.
I'm actually not making any argument about profitability in the long run. Simply about whether swombat's comment about missed opportunities, or your comment that there won't be missed opportunities, holds.
I am now able to see how your situation would work, so I will abandon my deep skepticism. But I have also come think it's far more complex than any of these comments. They now both seem plausible, and I don't think either of you can be certain without substantial justification. :D