3 ms·
Wages are not 1:1 corresponded with reduction in labor force, because companies will often gladly squeeze individuals harder and harder rather than pay more to
by fzeroracer 3y ago
Wages are not 1:1 corresponded with reduction in labor force, because companies will often gladly squeeze individuals harder and harder rather than pay more to hire more. Look at all of the people who complained about 'people not wanting to work' when fast food and restaurant industries had a lack of workers.
Additionally this can tend to have bad effects on the rest of our systems, for example the nursing shortage isn't resulting in better pay for most individuals despite them being in high demand. It's resulting in a rise in traveling nurses which also impacts the salary of other nurses. Companies are incredibly resistant to paying people more, especially when they have monopolistic control over jobs in certain areas which allows them to forcibly depress wages.
- huytersd 3y agoI would bet there is only so much squeezing you can do and losing 40-50% of the workforce would mean that you cannot sustainably as one person to do the job of two for an extended period.
- fzeroracer 3y agoThe key word is 'sustainably'. If companies cared about that, we wouldn't be in this spot. Companies will gladly coast with the bare minimum even if it means losing people can ruin entire systems or projects as long as the next quarter results look good.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>as long as the next quarter results look good. And companies always underestimate how much their burn and churn affects the next year at the cost of the quarter. I won't exactly sympathize with them as they degrade and a facility that doesn't drain blood from a rock rises.