4 ms·

Reducing the number of employers is better for existing employers, yes. Less competition for labor. They will be able to get better talent and pay them less. Th

Reducing the number of employers is better for existing employers, yes. Less competition for labor. They will be able to get better talent and pay them less. That would be great, for them.

pooya13 8y ago
Amazon opening shop in NY will lead to having less employers and less competition in the long run, not more. Furthermore having less competition is not always better for the existing employers. It is much easier to complete with 10 local coffee shops than with a giant cooperation like Starbucks. Specially if the giant corporation is getting a massive tax break, has collective power of capital, but does not have to respond to collective power of labor (no unions).
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  we're saying here that less competition is bad and more competition is also bad
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > we're saying here that less competition is bad and more competition is also bad I think you're thinking too short term. If all the most lucrative markets are dominated by the same few tech employers, then maybe they'll end up with another moat around themselves. That moat might be one that might actually be good for both the employers and the employees, but bad for everyone else. The market position of the competitors matters.
  - pooya13 8y ago
    That’s not what I am saying. What I mean is that it has more to do with the circumstances than the number of competitors. In general more competition is better for consumers and less is better for business owners. But in this case it’s lose lose (with the only winner being Amazon) as it will reduce the number of local businesses long term while also making it harder for the remaining businesses to compete with Amazon due to the unfair handouts they were expecting to receive from the government.
kjksf 8y ago
If talent was forbidden from leaving NY, that would be the case. But talent is a plane ticket away from SF or Seattle so if SF or Seattle company pays more than NY company, the talent will move there. If there are 10 thousand jobs created in Seattle instead of NY, the talent will leave NY for Seattle. Seattle will gain 10 thousand highly paid residents and NY (and other areas) will loose them. That's the magic of a positive feedback loop: more employers mean more employees which means more employers. Yes, it does create a more competitive market for both jobs and people. Programmer A has to compete with programmer B for that great job. Company A has to compete with company B for that great programmer. Counter-intuitively, it leads to more stronger companies and programmers in a given area. This is great for the overall ecosystem, less great if you're a weak programmer or company.
- grogenaut 8y ago
  Yeah it's super easy to move your family to the other side of the country and lose all your friends and what not. Not a hard decision at all
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    Unless this is literally your first time talking about something in the abstract, you should know that comments like the above are referring to stochastic shifts in behavior across an entire population. Unless you have an argument that labor never moves for some reason, this is an exceedingly stupid response.
  - geofft 8y ago
    A good amount of hiring in these sectors is for people straight out of college, who generally have no family and are expecting to make new friends anyway. Also, if that's your argument, it makes a lot more sense for Amazon to open several small new offices through the country instead of a single new HQ in one city. (In fact another commenter is trying to argue against me on the grounds that people would be moving to NYC to take these jobs, and the lack of such moves is harming the NYC labor market. Perhaps the two of you should argue with each other.)

Reducing the number of employers is better for existing employers, yes. Less competition for labor. They will be able to get better talent and pay them less. That would be great, for them.

pooya13 8y ago

Amazon opening shop in NY will lead to having less employers and less competition in the long run, not more. Furthermore having less competition is not always better for the existing employers. It is much easier to complete with 10 local coffee shops than with a giant cooperation like Starbucks. Specially if the giant corporation is getting a massive tax break, has collective power of capital, but does not have to respond to collective power of labor (no unions).

nerfhammer 8y ago
we're saying here that less competition is bad and more competition is also bad
- ardy42 8y ago
  > we're saying here that less competition is bad and more competition is also bad I think you're thinking too short term. If all the most lucrative markets are dominated by the same few tech employers, then maybe they'll end up with another moat around themselves. That moat might be one that might actually be good for both the employers and the employees, but bad for everyone else. The market position of the competitors matters.
- pooya13 8y ago
  That’s not what I am saying. What I mean is that it has more to do with the circumstances than the number of competitors. In general more competition is better for consumers and less is better for business owners. But in this case it’s lose lose (with the only winner being Amazon) as it will reduce the number of local businesses long term while also making it harder for the remaining businesses to compete with Amazon due to the unfair handouts they were expecting to receive from the government.

kjksf 8y ago

If talent was forbidden from leaving NY, that would be the case. But talent is a plane ticket away from SF or Seattle so if SF or Seattle company pays more than NY company, the talent will move there. If there are 10 thousand jobs created in Seattle instead of NY, the talent will leave NY for Seattle. Seattle will gain 10 thousand highly paid residents and NY (and other areas) will loose them. That's the magic of a positive feedback loop: more employers mean more employees which means more employers. Yes, it does create a more competitive market for both jobs and people. Programmer A has to compete with programmer B for that great job. Company A has to compete with company B for that great programmer. Counter-intuitively, it leads to more stronger companies and programmers in a given area. This is great for the overall ecosystem, less great if you're a weak programmer or company.

grogenaut 8y ago
Yeah it's super easy to move your family to the other side of the country and lose all your friends and what not. Not a hard decision at all
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  Unless this is literally your first time talking about something in the abstract, you should know that comments like the above are referring to stochastic shifts in behavior across an entire population. Unless you have an argument that labor never moves for some reason, this is an exceedingly stupid response.
- geofft 8y ago
  A good amount of hiring in these sectors is for people straight out of college, who generally have no family and are expecting to make new friends anyway. Also, if that's your argument, it makes a lot more sense for Amazon to open several small new offices through the country instead of a single new HQ in one city. (In fact another commenter is trying to argue against me on the grounds that people would be moving to NYC to take these jobs, and the lack of such moves is harming the NYC labor market. Perhaps the two of you should argue with each other.)