>The context was wages causing inflation, if I
>remember correctly. Though it was almost three
>days ago. Oil causing inflation is different
>from wages causing inflation. Check Capital,
>Volume II, around page 600 or so.
Alan must be reading. A search for his buzzphrase "pool of available workers" and variants on it - it's getting very shallow, and he's worried - at the Fed website returns 29 hits.
Most recently, Feb 17:
"Imbalances in the labor markets perhaps may have even more serious implications for inflation pressures. While the pool of officially unemployed and those otherwise willing to work may continue to shrink, as it has persistently over the past seven years, there is an effective limit to new hiring, unless immigration is uncapped. At some point in the continuous reduction in the number of available workers willing to take jobs, short of the repeal of the law of supply and demand, wage increases must rise above even impressive gains in productivity. This would intensify inflationary pressures or squeeze profit margins, with either outcome capable of bringing our growing prosperity to an end."
Better a higher fed funds rate bring prosperity to an end!
Doug