3 ms·

There is no such thing as a worker deficit in a market economy. "The Economist" knows this. We have to stop engaging with anyone who speaks this way as legiti

There is no such thing as a worker deficit in a market economy. "The Economist" knows this. We have to stop engaging with anyone who speaks this way as legitimate actors. They only deserve scorn and mockery for their brazen dishonesty.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
To clarify, putting my own words to what I think you're implying: The Economist is pushing the dishonest narrative that there's an employee shortage, when actually there's a glut of greedy "we don't want to pay higher wages" employers. The Economist is, therefore, enabling these greedy employers.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  It's like me complaining there is a shortage of new Porsches, when I'm only willing to pay $10K. Just can't find any, and I've called around every dealership. Must be a shortage.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Depending on independent actors in a free market system to act on specific moral principles rather than in their own best interest is not going to work in practice. You'll get some that adhere to those principles, and others that don't. If society deems minimum wage too low, government is the one responsible for regulating it to reflect those morals. Rather than see the employers as greedy, just accept that they'll most likely do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help themselves, and then change the law to shape the incentive. Anything else is just wishful thinking. Well intentioned, but not realistic to achieve the purported goal.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    Re-written as: >The Economist is, therefore, enabling employers to do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help themselves. Saying 'greedy' just saves 13 words. But I'm being flippant with what I consider to be an important topic. Let me be be positive, this: Depending on independent actors in a free market system to act on specific moral principles rather than in their own best interest is not going to work in practice. Feels like a variation of a "tragedy of the commons[0]" / "race to the bottom[1]" situation, which is where this: government is the one responsible for regulating it is exposed as the causal failure - in large part because, I think, the same people that influence the angle The Economist is taking are those who 'donate' to various members of government. The more I'm talking through this, the more I see the problem as voter apathy. If a member of government only gets feedback from industry lobbyists, that's all they'll be able to base their decisions on. Write your local members! Use your voice! Vote! (I'm saying this to myself as much as anyone else). Only politics can solve politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    >If society deems minimum wage too low, government is the one responsible for regulating it to reflect those morals. The minimum wage is pushed up by large corporations to squeeze out small corporations. If "society" deems minimum wage too low, they stop accepting jobs at that wage. That's what's happening right now in my area. There are no employers offering the legal minimum wage and even fast food places are offering hiring bonuses. The law is largely irrelevant and only affects a very narrow window of workers/jobs at the edge.
closeparen 5y ago
It's pretty clear that they are comparing the present state to the pre-pandemic state, not making some kind of normative claim.
adam_arthur 5y ago
Well, certainly there can be structural shortages. Imagine all people under 60 disappeared/died (for whatever reason). You'd still have many elderly consumers, but nobody to serve them. Of course we can get into immigration and a long tangential discussion. My only point being, there can be structural shortages that wages aren't able to fix. Another more realistic example would be a shortage of labor with a specific skillset. Wages can potentially fix this in the longer run by enticing people to pick up these skills (we see this in tech).

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

To clarify, putting my own words to what I think you're implying: The Economist is pushing the dishonest narrative that there's an employee shortage, when actually there's a glut of greedy "we don't want to pay higher wages" employers. The Economist is, therefore, enabling these greedy employers.

ryandrake 5y ago
It's like me complaining there is a shortage of new Porsches, when I'm only willing to pay $10K. Just can't find any, and I've called around every dealership. Must be a shortage.
adam_arthur 5y ago
Depending on independent actors in a free market system to act on specific moral principles rather than in their own best interest is not going to work in practice. You'll get some that adhere to those principles, and others that don't. If society deems minimum wage too low, government is the one responsible for regulating it to reflect those morals. Rather than see the employers as greedy, just accept that they'll most likely do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help themselves, and then change the law to shape the incentive. Anything else is just wishful thinking. Well intentioned, but not realistic to achieve the purported goal.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Re-written as: >The Economist is, therefore, enabling employers to do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help themselves. Saying 'greedy' just saves 13 words. But I'm being flippant with what I consider to be an important topic. Let me be be positive, this: Depending on independent actors in a free market system to act on specific moral principles rather than in their own best interest is not going to work in practice. Feels like a variation of a "tragedy of the commons[0]" / "race to the bottom[1]" situation, which is where this: government is the one responsible for regulating it is exposed as the causal failure - in large part because, I think, the same people that influence the angle The Economist is taking are those who 'donate' to various members of government. The more I'm talking through this, the more I see the problem as voter apathy. If a member of government only gets feedback from industry lobbyists, that's all they'll be able to base their decisions on. Write your local members! Use your voice! Vote! (I'm saying this to myself as much as anyone else). Only politics can solve politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  >If society deems minimum wage too low, government is the one responsible for regulating it to reflect those morals. The minimum wage is pushed up by large corporations to squeeze out small corporations. If "society" deems minimum wage too low, they stop accepting jobs at that wage. That's what's happening right now in my area. There are no employers offering the legal minimum wage and even fast food places are offering hiring bonuses. The law is largely irrelevant and only affects a very narrow window of workers/jobs at the edge.

closeparen 5y ago

It's pretty clear that they are comparing the present state to the pre-pandemic state, not making some kind of normative claim.

adam_arthur 5y ago

Well, certainly there can be structural shortages. Imagine all people under 60 disappeared/died (for whatever reason). You'd still have many elderly consumers, but nobody to serve them. Of course we can get into immigration and a long tangential discussion. My only point being, there can be structural shortages that wages aren't able to fix. Another more realistic example would be a shortage of labor with a specific skillset. Wages can potentially fix this in the longer run by enticing people to pick up these skills (we see this in tech).