5 ms·

If there is a higher demand for workers during certain hours, shouldn't the workers be paid higher for those hours? Seems like a fair trade off? If you want a

• apalmer 12y ago
  This doesnt really follow. There is no incentive for the business to pay more just because.
  • antman 12y ago
    In other countries it is compulsory.
  • swalsh 12y ago
    I edited my comment about 2 seconds after I posted it, saying that it would probably require regulation.
  • justizin 12y ago
    when basic dignity for workers is 'just because', a business has lost its' way. a business should produce three things, for three important customer segments: customers, investors, and workers, and all three are equally important. too many businesses, most of the large ones esp, cater only to investors (or the interests of the owners) leaving both customers and workers by the wayside. i fully support exile for people who operate these businesses.
• mikeash 12y ago
  Looking from the other side of it: if the supply of workers is such that you can get enough for your high-demand hours without paying more, why should workers be paid more? I realize that the real world adds a lot of complications, but in theory, supply and demand should just work itself out here. "In theory" isn't always useful by itself, but the remedy depends greatly on why the theory is breaking down.
  • koblas 12y ago
    It could be viewed as a tragedy of the commons economic issue. Where a small pool of workers who have some self-interest driven needs (e.g I need money) in place drive a market to a condition that is no longer functional (e.g. nobody can make a living wage).
• zo1 12y ago
  "Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices." That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of low-wage workers. My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly, because the argument really isn't about "fair-wage", it's more about "entitlement" so people see it as some sort of loss instead of a huge gain in a market that really isn't favoring them at the moment.
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    > My solution: Company towns. Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts... in the middle of nowhere. But that'll never fly ...because its been done before, became widely and accurately recognized as de facto slavery, and the key components of such schemes outlawed.
    • zo1 12y ago
      Enlighten me how that is slavery? Bear in mind, in my example people have the choice to go there, or not.
      • angersock 12y ago
        Consult your history--even in the event where going there was a choice, there are many, many ways to rig the game so that it becomes economically infeasible to leave again. You also assume that people have free choice; when you're near flat broke, it's easy to miss your other options.
        • zo1 12y ago
          I see, so you're going to argue against historical company towns instead of my as-yet-undetermined suggestion. Do you honestly think a civilized country or informed internet would allow a company town to exist if it behaved like the historical company towns? They'd be up in arms as soon as they found out. Though, to be fair. We have "company towns" right now in Dubai and those oil-rich middle-east cities. Guess who's turning a blind eye? The government's where the cities are, and the governments of those immigrants being taken advantage of. They're ignored by both sides.