4 ms·

Wages are as low as employers can get away with. The problem would disappear if all workers had 10 employers to choose from. Lack of demand for labour is due to

Wages are as low as employers can get away with. The problem would disappear if all workers had 10 employers to choose from. Lack of demand for labour is due to not enough market competition. We need to push corporations into a innovation race toward better products. Elon Musk is disrupting the auto industry, same thing needs to happen for every industry with entrenched rent-seeking players who drag their feet.

panarky 8y ago
> Wages are as low as employers can get away with Monopsony: a market structure in which a few buyers substantially control the market as the major purchasers of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers.
kakwa_ 8y ago
Are we talking about the same Elon Musk that creates companies with really bad workers conditions? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-wor... Disrupting a market as nothing to do with wages. Amazon did disrupt the retail industry, but the workers conditions and wages are bad. The "disrupt" aspect can also lead to a quasi monopoly situation (Facebook, Google), so much for market competition... Also competition in low margin markets tends to be a driver for lower wages, not higher wages. High demand in a market can drive higher wages, not competition. Tech workers have the luxury to choose from dozen employers because: 1) it takes years to train a CS engineer and it takes weeks if not months to get him up to speed in most companies (due to the immaturity of the industry IMHO), so you want to retain him. 2) there is a shortage of tech workers. 3) there is a bubble with a ton of money poured into it. 4) the tech industry is high margin, with a marginal cost for a unit (either a software copy or a new customer in a service) generally quite close to zero. Basically successful tech companies earn more money that they know want to do with. This is an exceptional situation. The real issue is that wage inequalities are growing quite significantly, and as a consequence, capital inequalities are becoming absolutely huge. It's a snowball effect. And with a lot of money, specific individuals/companies can heavily influence political and societal decisions/opinions (by owning newspapers, tv channels... by financing political parties/campaigns, by lobbying heavily the law makers). We are slowly but surely returning to a wealth distribution and monopoly situation as seen in the 19th century (Albeit with a far better material situation (food security, hygiene/health, education...) for nearly everyone on Earth due to the scientific and technical improvements over the past 2 centuries) This situation is a societal decision: do we accept that in a society with the global means and wealth for everybody to have food, a roof, medical care and education, they are still hardworking people on the brink of poverty? If the answer is no, it should be translated in political decision/laws (minimal wage or maybe universal income/social security/free education...).

panarky 8y ago

> Wages are as low as employers can get away with Monopsony: a market structure in which a few buyers substantially control the market as the major purchasers of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers.

kakwa_ 8y ago

Are we talking about the same Elon Musk that creates companies with really bad workers conditions? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-wor... Disrupting a market as nothing to do with wages. Amazon did disrupt the retail industry, but the workers conditions and wages are bad. The "disrupt" aspect can also lead to a quasi monopoly situation (Facebook, Google), so much for market competition... Also competition in low margin markets tends to be a driver for lower wages, not higher wages. High demand in a market can drive higher wages, not competition. Tech workers have the luxury to choose from dozen employers because: 1) it takes years to train a CS engineer and it takes weeks if not months to get him up to speed in most companies (due to the immaturity of the industry IMHO), so you want to retain him. 2) there is a shortage of tech workers. 3) there is a bubble with a ton of money poured into it. 4) the tech industry is high margin, with a marginal cost for a unit (either a software copy or a new customer in a service) generally quite close to zero. Basically successful tech companies earn more money that they know want to do with. This is an exceptional situation. The real issue is that wage inequalities are growing quite significantly, and as a consequence, capital inequalities are becoming absolutely huge. It's a snowball effect. And with a lot of money, specific individuals/companies can heavily influence political and societal decisions/opinions (by owning newspapers, tv channels... by financing political parties/campaigns, by lobbying heavily the law makers). We are slowly but surely returning to a wealth distribution and monopoly situation as seen in the 19th century (Albeit with a far better material situation (food security, hygiene/health, education...) for nearly everyone on Earth due to the scientific and technical improvements over the past 2 centuries) This situation is a societal decision: do we accept that in a society with the global means and wealth for everybody to have food, a roof, medical care and education, they are still hardworking people on the brink of poverty? If the answer is no, it should be translated in political decision/laws (minimal wage or maybe universal income/social security/free education...).