Not really, when you consider both the interests of the buyer or the seller. The buyer of course would rather like goods and services be cheaper. It might be tempting to say that "people" deserve special consideration over "goods", it breaks down when you consider that goods are also made by people. Moreover gatekeeping whether you can use the characterization of "we can't get ... for cheap" depending on whether the seller is sympathetic or not (ie. "people" vs "goods") is a blatant way of smuggling in a conclusion via wording, similar to "terrorists" vs "freedom fighters".
I don't think this is correct. The reasons economists separate capital and labor is that they do have different characteristics. Labor has skill, capital can have technology. Assets exist regardless of utilization, labor cannot be stored up in an inventory since labor is time which flows inexorably onwards.
A shortage of an asset is a reflection of inventory levels. A shortage of labor reflects a lack of skill or time OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
They're different for good reasons.
>A shortage of an asset is a reflection of inventory levels [...] OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
So the housing crisis in just an "inventory" issue? Maybe it's just that people aren't willing to pay enough for a dwelling in desirable coastal cities?
>A shortage of labor reflects a lack of skill or time OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
How's this different than for goods? You're just substituting "time" for "production". Moreover
A shortage exists at a point in time, propensity to pay to make the asset may react to the demand for the asset, but there is no guarantee that supply of labor and capital meet at an efficient point. (art is a great example where the overlap between supply and demand may have no overlap at all for certain pieces).
Lack of demand for labor and skill can produce an asset shortage, but in an economy where supply and demand float, the theory is that shortages reflect supply-demand failures, and the degree to which supply of labor is invoked to solve shortages for goods depends on the elasticity of demand and the elasticity of supply.
But assets and technology itself is ultimately created by labour.
There might be an exception for natural resources that are exceptionally easy to exploit even without labour, like sunlight or fresh air.
Also if you sideline too many goods, the goods can't rise up and force a new economy.
Someone here posted that the balance was better in the west in the past because the Soviet Union was sitting there on the sidelines like a boogy many to capitalists waiting if they pushed people too far.