2 ms·
There is an assumption underlying my premise: that organisations are in competition with one another. I think that's a fair assumption to make. I would expect
by gms 14y ago
There is an assumption underlying my premise: that organisations are in competition with one another. I think that's a fair assumption to make.
I would expect that competing organisations would do anything legal to give them a leg up over the competition, including the hiring of workers they consider productive away from the competition. It's too risky otherwise; all it takes is for some other organisation to offer wages, causing both organisations A and B to lose their productive workers.
Do you disagree with that?
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoYes, I disagree. Again: employers know that each employer who stops paying any wages reinforces the non-paying equilibrium by increasing the price-point-zero oligopsony. Market dynamics work as you described when buyers are required to actually pay something.
- liber8 14y agoHonest question: can you point to any example in history where this has happened? I ask because, if your theory of how labor markets work is valid, it would seem that every professional sports team on the planet would be willing to reward you handsomely if you could demonstrate how this works in practice.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoHonest question: can you point to any example in history where this has happened? All periods of labor glut when it has been legal. In order for competition to force wages up (above zero, at least), there must on some level be more jobs than workers.
- liber8 14y ago1. You didn't answer the question. Can you point to any example in history of this EVER happening? I'll take any example. 2. This is patently false. Even if there were 0 jobs, wages would not be zero. People simply won't work without some incentive. If I want you to go out and dig a hole in the ground, I either need to reward you for doing so, or find a way to convince you that you want to dig that hole of your own free will.