>if someone produces way more than they cost, then employers will be lining up to hire them
Not someone who buys into efficient markets in labor (or anything really): I don't think that's true. The cost of additional employment can be burdened by other things (human resources expenses, compliance) times the risk that the employee is a dud. These can increase the 'activation barrier' inherent into adding a hire. And what if you only need one widget? You wouldn't buy as many as possible at all, because the rest will just be dead weight.
You're right that what matters is the cost of the employee to the employer, which wages form only a part. But if the employee productivity far outpaces that, then they'll be hiring, which will bid up those wages.
> You wouldn't buy as many as possible at all, because the rest will just be dead weight.
As I said, "if you could sell them for $1.00", which is not dead weight. Any merchant badly wants widgets that can be sold for 10x cost. Heck, I'd even start a reselling business if I could find such a product!
well, sketchiness of the metrics aside, the 75% more productive is an average value, not a median value (or a mode), so not all labor will yield "1.75x cost"...
Not someone who buys into efficient markets in labor (or anything really): I don't think that's true. The cost of additional employment can be burdened by other things (human resources expenses, compliance) times the risk that the employee is a dud. These can increase the 'activation barrier' inherent into adding a hire. And what if you only need one widget? You wouldn't buy as many as possible at all, because the rest will just be dead weight.