4 ms·
This is related to one fundamental question: what alternatives do workers have? If their employer is a monopolist of labor, and the laborer has no ability to m
by bufordsharkley 9y ago
This is related to one fundamental question: what alternatives do workers have?
If their employer is a monopolist of labor, and the laborer has no ability to move and find employment elsewhere, their employer enjoys full rein to demand whatever wage they can.
However, if an employer functions within a competitive market of labor, you should see labor fetch a fair wage. This could be in the form of self-employment.
...If employers are able to negotiate more effectively and take more of the share from labor, it almost certainly means that labor is being denied alternatives.
The real question, I think, is which alternatives have changed, and why.
- golergka 9y agoAre there really situations in modern world where an employer is a monopolist on a labour market in the whole market available to a worker (ie not just this small town with a single factory, but at least the whole state)? It seems to me that the only monopolist player in such a situation could be a union.
- bufordsharkley 9y agoWell, outside of some extreme cases (such as professional sports), I think you see this in a "company town", where laborers could theoretically move, but usually lack the means to do so. (And increasingly can't afford the higher cost of living of the places where the jobs are.) Anyway, when the "company town" economies were thriving, they usually coexisted with unions, to help balance the ability to negotiate wages. ...The fact that we're seeing labor's share decline within cities (where there are clearly many employers) dispels me of the concept that monopolies/oligopolies are responsible for this decline.