If you suddenly introduced a huge new supply of available labor, then this large additional labor supply does influence wage rates in the short-run.
In the longer run, there is no evidence that nations like America with a large labor force have lower wages than a nations with a smaller labor force, because the labor force creates its own economic demand.
G. K. Chesterton may have been an interesting writer, but he was a shit economist when he said "We cannot all live by taking in each other's washing," because that's precisely what the global economy consists of.
This is a point regularly lost on people who don't understand economics, like Ramesh Ponnuru in "National Review". They regularly claim that only certain types of work, which they prefer for some reason, contributes to our economy.
The wealth of every economy, even a tribal village, lies in specialization. I'm quite bad at doing washing, but fortunately I'm actually quite a bit better at doing some other things. You might be too.
Automating farm work in the 1800s did create a huge supply of available labor as former farm workers in Europe and America. They generally moved to cities where the wage rates were marginally higher. But mechanization of farm work did not create a long-term unemployment problem. Each automation of the production of goods has had a similar short-term effect on unemployment, but also a similar long-term rise in the standard of living.
If n4807g does not continue to improve upon his ability to have sandpaper made, he won't be making and selling it for very long.
We've run out of other people's Social Security taxes needed to subsidize our low income tax rates.
