dan,
i don't know how you came to that response when there was no mention of actual numbers.
The reply was from a very fundamental basis, not specific to an instance.
I spent a lot of time basically, getting screwed, and wondering why the numbers could not be made to match up. It seems simple in theory, work at a skill level where value is created and earn an honest living. I spent a lot of time at tag sales buying old college econ textbooks looking for the insight. They were all kindergarten level, pictures of dollar signs with an arrow showing flow to the bank building.
I finally found the insight I was looking for in a history of economics book published in 1954. What became predictable but not when. I could make more than one fortune with good timing. I've posted this before Georgetown history and economics professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope.
Quigley's insight, in reference to your inquiry, for thousands of years prior to ~ 1900, doing anything, building, farming, trade, was very labor intensive and the skilled labor would be in short supply. Money, cash, capital would also be in short supply which is why honest trade was conducted historically using seashells, dung chips, wooden sticks, as money for transaction. Since labor was a scare and valuable commodity, there was also institutionalzed conscription, slavery. Shortages of labor when production was labor intensive resulted in shortages of output, scarcity of goods offered for sale.
After ~ 1900, with the exploitation of oil fuels, mechanization, the atomic understanding of the universe, chemistry, electronics, large capital organization, output per labor hour, and output in aggregate of goods offered for sale, far exceeded demand and achieved, essentially, perpetual surplus.
The surplus of output relative demand also produced a surplus of labor, which in theory could have resulted in more leisure time for the worker. It took physically less labor to produce the necessities of living. There was a decision to be made by the powers that be, what to do to create demand to absorb and balance the surplus capacity to produce goods offered for sale. One option was to push demand farther down the economic ladder, to the 'have nots'. Consumption for the have nots, once the daily living necessities are met, moves up the ladder of consumption, to free leisure time, education, intellectual and entertainment pursuits, self enrichment, travel, study. The necessities could be met with less overall labor.
Reinvestment of the surplus in productive capacity results in larger more efficient productive capacity, which results in more of a surplus of goods offered for sale.
There has to be money in circulation to buy the output of goods offered for sale, which is why the federal reserve is able to print money and lend that cash to the Treasury at interest, purchase Treasury debt. Growth in output needs to be balanced with growth in the money supply for output to be bought and transaction to take place.
The powers that be probably feared the huge increase in population, babies!, that would result from the have nots meeting their daily necessities more easily coupled with more leisure time, and so another system was needed to absorb the phenonenal and very real huge surplus of productive capacity.
Which brings us to the present day. Yes, we needed goobermint waste. The gov borrows, the act of borrowing increases the money supply, and the money is not spent on delivering the surplus (leisure time, personal advancement) to the have nots, the borrowing is "capital investment in goods not offered for sale". Labor is again conscripted, now to service interest on the debt, for usury
For things to align with the fundamental real surplus, wages would have to rise to the point where necessities are met easily and result in more free time for the worker. There is a surplus of everything, including labor. The worker would have to be technically skilled, but this technology, tooling, capital investment, results in vast gains of output per labor hour.
My reply was not specific to your inquiry. It is fundamentally why there's a vote to raise the debt limit. Or, why is there a vote?
