this link ... http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf contains an article about market distortions and costs of municap recycling operations and makes comaprisons to 'private' material recycling and reuse.
i found this excerpt of interest "In a similar vein, 50 years ago, when labor was relatively cheap
compared to materials, goods were built to be repaired, so that the
expensive materials could be used for a longer period of time. As
the price of labor has risen and the cost of materials has fallen, manufacturers
have responded—in the interests of consumers and society—
by building items to be used until they break, and then
discarded. There is no “bias” against recycling; there is merely a
market-driven effort to conserve resources."
firstly, i dont know if this is completely true or not - or if a valid comparison can be made from economics 6 decades ago.
my first thought was; has the price of labor risen against the cost of materials or stayed nearly the same amidst falling material costs? i am not sure.
additionally, the excerpt "manufacturers
discarded...." would cheaper-to-repair-and upgrade have been just as much of interest to society?
the logic of that claim seems unclear to me.
what i would also like to know however is would a market money or commodity money provide a different outcome than the alleged "falling price of materials and rising labor costs" mentioned above.
i have read that many at mises.org seem to bemoan the price increasing effects of monetary inflation.
if prices of materials have declined faster than labor prices as in the article - did this occur under government managed currency?
or did the falling prices of materials decline in spite of the government managed currency?
would private money generation work in the same way that private recycling seems to... much more beneficial that municipal recycling operations?
input and clarification would be appreciated
Historically it has been true that labor rises faster than material, simply look at ancient times verses now. Over the last 50 years i believe this would also be true, even without government interference it would be true. I doubt the currency manipulation had much to do with, bu worker regulation and most importantly education. Both with and without government, education on average would increase, making the worker more skillful, and thus more expensive, while raw materials are easier to mine and achieve due to technology, slowly decreasing overtime.