3 ms·

>>Except power itself is determined by supply and demand. not necessarily. consider what would have happened if the workers were unionized, for example. You mi

>>Except power itself is determined by supply and demand. not necessarily. consider what would have happened if the workers were unionized, for example. You might still have had the same number of jobs, but a different distribution of profits to employees/owners.

randomdata 9y ago
Unionization is a form of supply management (as is minimum wage[1]). A union does not change the rules of supply and demand, it exploits the rules of supply and demand for the benefit of the employees by artificially limiting the supply. With the reduced supply of workers, the power of the workers increases as I described in the final paragraph of my previous comment. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16775810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16775810
- cosmic_ape 9y ago
  ok, we can define it like that. but its useful to distinguish between these different ways supply and demand can act then, under your definition. One is concerned with just the number of available jobs, and concerns the "efficient market" situation where employers simply can not increase wages and stay profitable. This is the more common "supply and demand" notion, afaik. The other is artificial - workers can unionize, and what the employers can do is described in the article.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    > One is concerned with just the number of available jobs I am given the impression that you may still have some misconceptions about what supply and demand means. Supply and demand, in the labor market, does not mean the number of jobs available. The best way I can describe supply and demand in a short comment on the internet is that supply and demand is about competition. The supply is those willing (and able) to offer something better to those who want what you have. In labour this could mean doing a better job, or simply offering to do it for less money. The demand is those willing (and able) to offer something better to suppliers. In labor this could mean a business offering free lunches, or simply more money. When there is nobody willing to offer more, and nobody willing to give for less, you have reached equilibrium. To be abundantly clear, someone saying that they have a job is not demand. For argument's sake, if we say all programmers are paid $30/hr. and a business wants to hire a programmer for $10/hr., there is no incentive for anyone to take that job. As far as supply and demand goes, that job does not exist. I will point out that this is also why the formal definition of shortage, not the colloquial one you sometimes see used on HN, is a situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising. The $10/hr. programming job does not increase the demand for programmers. It is not a shortage because the business couldn't find anyone at $10/hr. The business trying to offer $10/hr. is not in the market to begin with.

randomdata 9y ago

Unionization is a form of supply management (as is minimum wage[1]). A union does not change the rules of supply and demand, it exploits the rules of supply and demand for the benefit of the employees by artificially limiting the supply. With the reduced supply of workers, the power of the workers increases as I described in the final paragraph of my previous comment. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16775810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16775810

cosmic_ape 9y ago
ok, we can define it like that. but its useful to distinguish between these different ways supply and demand can act then, under your definition. One is concerned with just the number of available jobs, and concerns the "efficient market" situation where employers simply can not increase wages and stay profitable. This is the more common "supply and demand" notion, afaik. The other is artificial - workers can unionize, and what the employers can do is described in the article.
- randomdata 9y ago
  > One is concerned with just the number of available jobs I am given the impression that you may still have some misconceptions about what supply and demand means. Supply and demand, in the labor market, does not mean the number of jobs available. The best way I can describe supply and demand in a short comment on the internet is that supply and demand is about competition. The supply is those willing (and able) to offer something better to those who want what you have. In labour this could mean doing a better job, or simply offering to do it for less money. The demand is those willing (and able) to offer something better to suppliers. In labor this could mean a business offering free lunches, or simply more money. When there is nobody willing to offer more, and nobody willing to give for less, you have reached equilibrium. To be abundantly clear, someone saying that they have a job is not demand. For argument's sake, if we say all programmers are paid $30/hr. and a business wants to hire a programmer for $10/hr., there is no incentive for anyone to take that job. As far as supply and demand goes, that job does not exist. I will point out that this is also why the formal definition of shortage, not the colloquial one you sometimes see used on HN, is a situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising. The $10/hr. programming job does not increase the demand for programmers. It is not a shortage because the business couldn't find anyone at $10/hr. The business trying to offer $10/hr. is not in the market to begin with.