5 ms·
>If you believe that labor is not an exception to the law of supply and demand You seem to imply that it's obvious that labor is subject to the law of supply a
by jmcqk6 8y ago
>If you believe that labor is not an exception to the law of supply and demand
You seem to imply that it's obvious that labor is subject to the law of supply and demand, but I think the reality is much more complicated than that - especially in rural america.
Ask the following questions:
- How many people could be making more money by working another job somewhere else, but do not, for non-money related reasons?
- How many people could be making more money by moving somewhere else, but do not, again for non-money related reasons.
I know people who have stayed in really shitty jobs, only because a side benefit of that job meant that their kid can go to college much more cheaply.
I know people who have stayed in really shitty jobs, because that's the only job they can find in their small town, and they need to stay in that town in order to care for family members.
I know people who have stayed in really shitty jobs because they have health problems and cannot risk a change to their health insurance.
I could go on and on.
Labor only works by supply and demand if workers have perfect freedom to move between jobs. That is rarely true. Wages are as likely to be mandated by the hierarchy in the organization than they are to be dictated by fair negotiation between the employer and employee.
I'm sure your theory for how this all works makes perfect sense in your head, but when looking at real world examples, I don't see it at all.
- frogpelt 8y agoYou are allowing anecdotal evidence to replace statistical analysis. There are lots of people who stay in a job when they could theoretically move up. But overall the labor market is subject to the law of supply and demand. If what you say is true, and they aren't strongly correlated with supply and demand and the health of the economy, then why do we even report labor statistics?
- jmcqk6 8y ago>they aren't strongly correlated with supply and demand and the health of the economy, then why do we even report labor statistics You're making the assumption that the only reason labor statistics would be useful is if employment is subject complete to supply and demand. Consider the possibility that labor statistics could be useful simply because they are an aspect of the health of the economy, and it doesn't necessarily matter if they are a result of supply and demand, or has a more complex causality. Trying to reduce labor to supply and demand only makes things very nice for theoretical considerations, but it doesn't force reality to match theory. Supply and Demand is the same thing as a spherical cow in physics. A useful simplification sometimes, but if you take it literally, you're going to go wrong.
- frogpelt 8y agoStraw man. I never remotely suggested that employment is only based on supply and demand. You're suggesting that it's not.
- jmcqk6 8y agoNo, I'm suggesting that it's a lot more complicated than supply and demand. I don't think it's even the dominating force. People do not try to optimize money earned. Supply and Demand is a factor. My point is if you try to understand the employment market based only on supply and demand, your models are crap because they are leaving out lots and lots of other factors. Making assertions about the labor market based solely on an analysis of supply and demand is not useful at all unless your goal is to argue ideology and not reality.