Do you think the wage elasticity of non-productive, pecuniary

I don't know

Could you repeat the question?

I'd suspect it would be lower, being that non-productive work is really fucking easy.

Could you repeat the question?

>>2346468
Why? Wouldn't this be a problem for people who actively analyze the level of wages? Why wouldn't the wages of non-productive workers increase at a faster rate than the wages of productive workers for each rise in price??

How are there any industries with no output at all that survive on the institution of pecuniary necessities in life? Through Keynesianism we are taught that industries' increasing output definitively increasing the liquidity motive for money, thereby decreasing the interest rate and the marginal efficiency of capital, which having an inverse relationship with the level of investment necessarily increases investment significantly.

>>2346483
>thereby decreasing the interest rate and the marginal efficiency of capital, which having an inverse relationship with the level of investment necessarily increases investment significantly.
Sorry, the interest rate and the marginal efficiency of capital would decrease as well.

So in order to bring this up, and because of the attraction of investment this raises investment.

Now. Investment in Keynesian economics works fundamentally on a State controlled perspective, or at the very least with sufficient market switches for investment in the case of depression, so clearly non-productive industries contribute to a rise in the wages with completely inelastic output. Is it safe to assume that under Keynes definitions non-productive labor is inherently inflationary and THIS would explain why inflation exists at all, considering that any sort of growth in prices being absorbed by output would not produce 'true inflation'?

>>2346450
What do you mean by 'inherently higher'?

>>2346909
As in, across the board for non-productive employment, as the price rises, the employment will rise in a smaller proportion to the price change than the wages.

>>2346921
Relatively to the productive work, that is.

>>2346921
You mean necessarily? No matter what?

I'm economically retarded, can someone explain what OP is asking to me?

>>2346921
Yeah I do mean that, what do you think? Some input would be nice.