4 ms·

First off, your statistic is wildly inaccurate. You’re citing the number of certified pilots, not the number of actively employed pilots, which is roughly 81k [

First off, your statistic is wildly inaccurate. You’re citing the number of certified pilots, not the number of actively employed pilots, which is roughly 81k [0]. > Don't lump things together incorrectly then claim market share equals employment It of course is going to vary by industry and job class, but overall it actually does correlate. As we’ve seen your analysis was off by ash order of magnitude for pilots. >This is your opportunity to move more goalposts. I'm sure you can keep restricting classes from many industries, to airlines, to only the top one, to only pilots named Allen, and eventually you'll think you have a pilot without lots of places to work. But I suspect even then you'd fail to make the number of choices small. Or perhaps I don’t want to have to go on a wild goose chase hunting down specific statistics on every industry. [0] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes532011.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes532011.htm

SideQuark 4y ago
That BLS link is a subset of employed pilots, only the class listed as airline pilots, but excludes commercial pilots. Here [1] is a BLS listing for both at 135k. As such, the above points still stand :) 20% market share for American Airlines would be 0.20*135 = 27,000, yet they only employ 12000 pilots. This is true for all the top companies (you can check). And it still stands even using your numbers that are too low - I noticed you didn't check the math. But it truly holds for the proper BLS category. So the overall point still stands - market share does not equal pilot employment, and more pilots are employed outside your odd grouping of companies, which is a nonsensical grouping as is - the biggest has 20% of the market, and < 10% of the jobs. So you still want to claim pilots don't have choices? How many do they need? What country is better? > As we’ve seen your analysis was off by ash order of magnitude for pilots and yet when using corrected numbers all the points still stand, despite you trying to gorup 10 companies as one company. > but overall it actually does correlate Certainly it correlates - ignoring yet again that companies that are not large enough to dominate an employment simply cannot do so - they have to compete for workers. > Or perhaps I don’t want to have to go on a wild goose chase hunting down specific statistics on every industry. It's much easier to hold beliefs that don't match evidence when you're forming those beliefs while ignoring evidence. Try a few industries. Try to find even a single large sector of the US with very few employers, or an employer so large that they conceivable could dictate terms. And once you realize how hard it is to find this industry you seem to think pervades employment, you'll perhaps adjust your view to the reality of companies having to compete for employees across nearly all people in the US. This is why it's worth carefully looking at the evidence, which so far seems to be: US workers in nearly every industry are the highest paid in the world, US workers in nearly industry are not facing monopoly employers, and grouping lots of companies that are too small to have such market dominance does not remove the fact they do provide competition for employees. [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercial-pilots.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a...

SideQuark 4y ago

That BLS link is a subset of employed pilots, only the class listed as airline pilots, but excludes commercial pilots. Here [1] is a BLS listing for both at 135k. As such, the above points still stand :) 20% market share for American Airlines would be 0.20*135 = 27,000, yet they only employ 12000 pilots. This is true for all the top companies (you can check). And it still stands even using your numbers that are too low - I noticed you didn't check the math. But it truly holds for the proper BLS category. So the overall point still stands - market share does not equal pilot employment, and more pilots are employed outside your odd grouping of companies, which is a nonsensical grouping as is - the biggest has 20% of the market, and < 10% of the jobs. So you still want to claim pilots don't have choices? How many do they need? What country is better? > As we’ve seen your analysis was off by ash order of magnitude for pilots and yet when using corrected numbers all the points still stand, despite you trying to gorup 10 companies as one company. > but overall it actually does correlate Certainly it correlates - ignoring yet again that companies that are not large enough to dominate an employment simply cannot do so - they have to compete for workers. > Or perhaps I don’t want to have to go on a wild goose chase hunting down specific statistics on every industry. It's much easier to hold beliefs that don't match evidence when you're forming those beliefs while ignoring evidence. Try a few industries. Try to find even a single large sector of the US with very few employers, or an employer so large that they conceivable could dictate terms. And once you realize how hard it is to find this industry you seem to think pervades employment, you'll perhaps adjust your view to the reality of companies having to compete for employees across nearly all people in the US. This is why it's worth carefully looking at the evidence, which so far seems to be: US workers in nearly every industry are the highest paid in the world, US workers in nearly industry are not facing monopoly employers, and grouping lots of companies that are too small to have such market dominance does not remove the fact they do provide competition for employees. [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercial-pilots.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a...