The argument seems poorly constructed and hard to pull out from the article. But it boils down to, “Business won’t do it unless they have to. Lowering prices means demand has dropped and they need to boost demand. They will also cut jobs since they gave pay raises recenlty. Cutting jobs could result in a recession.”
I’m still a bit iffy if that’s the actual argument, but that’s my read right now.
The pain of rebalancing things to a more sustainable state is gonna happen anyway, and the longer it’s put off the worse it’s gonna be - so let’s just get it over with already!
I don’t think anything will rebalance, unless it will be forced, like the french did with the revolution, or the communist countries (independent of the outcomes, I think we all can agree that a process of change was triggered)
Is there a link to the actual text of the article or are we just sufficiently enraged by headlines now?
The Washington Post page is paywalled. Here’s the same article on MSN.
The argument seems poorly constructed and hard to pull out from the article. But it boils down to, “Business won’t do it unless they have to. Lowering prices means demand has dropped and they need to boost demand. They will also cut jobs since they gave pay raises recenlty. Cutting jobs could result in a recession.”
I’m still a bit iffy if that’s the actual argument, but that’s my read right now.
The pain of rebalancing things to a more sustainable state is gonna happen anyway, and the longer it’s put off the worse it’s gonna be - so let’s just get it over with already!
I don’t think anything will rebalance, unless it will be forced, like the french did with the revolution, or the communist countries (independent of the outcomes, I think we all can agree that a process of change was triggered)