> I understand the argument to be that, with no where else to go, they can lower the salaries of highly-skilled employees. But isn't there always somewhere else

> I understand the argument to be that, with no where else to go, they can lower the salaries of highly-skilled employees. But isn't there always somewhere else to go? Sure, but let's change the context of the list and see if it makes a difference. Consider the following: "If {some-company} employees can't go to {another-company}, there's always fast food, gas stations, grocery stores, logging and a sea of startups." As absurd and bizarrely absolute as this sounds, the notion is the same: there's a list of alternatives that is deemed acceptable by parties other than you, the employed. Still interested in letting others determine the available sources of your livelihood?