Low Wages from Business Consolidation?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All market wages are low wages.

"Market wage" means: Lowest possible wage for the employer.

According to the Law of Supply AND Demand, the employer does try to bid the wages down, just as the employee tries to bid the wages up. The resulting wage is in between, based on demand for labor, supply of labor, demand for wage, supply of wage, etc. But you don't care that the employee tries to bid the wages up, you only care that the employer tries to bid the wages down. It is fair for one party to demand, it is unfair for the other party to demand.

The resultant wage is always the lowest possible wage for the employer.

AND the highest possible wage for the employee.

Once they find people willing to take the wage they do not raise it.

And once employees find people willing to pay the wage they do not lower it.

That is how the system is set up.

In both directions.

To find that lowest possible wage.

And also to find the highest possible wage. Both directions. Employers bid as low as they can and employees bid it as high as they can.

The only things that have been known to raise it are unions and government mandates.

Hahahahaha!

 

[Playball40]

The resultant wage is always the lowest possible wage for the employer.

AND the highest possible wage for the employee.

Once they find people willing to take the wage they do not raise it.

And once employees find people willing to pay the wage they do not lower it.

That is how the system is set up.

In both directions.

To find that lowest possible wage.

And also to find the highest possible wage. Both directions. Employers bid as low as they can and employees bid it as high as they can.

The only things that have been known to raise it are unions and government mandates.

Hahahahaha!

No no no. Theoretic economics including your sacred law of supply and demand REQUIRES that both sides be equal to reach FMV. Once ONE SIDE has more power, your 'balance' is lost.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Free market economics does not require both sides to be equal, and does not require perfect knowledge, and whatever other perfect strawman you are going to come up with.

 

[lpetrich]

Free market economics does not require both sides to be equal, and does not require perfect knowledge, and whatever other perfect strawman you are going to come up with.

So you believe that there is no such thing as a market failure?

Also, are you claiming that "perfect market" theorems don't require conditions like equality, perfect knowledge, and the like?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Free market economics does not require both sides to be equal, and does not require perfect knowledge, and whatever other perfect strawman you are going to come up with.

So you believe that there is no such thing as a market failure?

No.

Also, are you claiming that "perfect market" theorems don't require conditions like equality, perfect knowledge, and the like?

I am claiming that the free market doesn't require a "perfect market".

 

[Playball40]

Free market economics does not require both sides to be equal, and does not require perfect knowledge, and whatever other perfect strawman you are going to come up with.

Then why are you using the word "free"? Clearly it's not. If one side has the power, there is NOTHING FREE ABOUT IT.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Free market economics does not require both sides to be equal, and does not require perfect knowledge, and whatever other perfect strawman you are going to come up with.

Then why are you using the word "free"? Clearly it's not. If one side has the power, there is NOTHING FREE ABOUT IT.

It also isn't a free market because there are prices on the goods so the goods aren't free.[/snark]

One side having greater bargaining power doesn't mean it isn't a free market.

 

[Playball40]

Free market economics does not require both sides to be equal, and does not require perfect knowledge, and whatever other perfect strawman you are going to come up with.

Then why are you using the word "free"? Clearly it's not. If one side has the power, there is NOTHING FREE ABOUT IT.

It also isn't a free market because there are prices on the goods so the goods aren't free.[/snark]

One side having greater bargaining power doesn't mean it isn't a free market.

Sure it does. There is nothing organic about the outcome if one side has greater power. There is nothing natural about it and all you will end up with is a feudal system. Of course, it also depends on the eleven billion definition of 'free market'. It changes daily depending on to whom your talking.

 

[Playball40]

Note definition of 'free' when used as an adjective:

free


/frē/


adjective

adjective: free; comparative adjective: freer; superlative adjective: freest



1.


not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
"I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"



•(of a state or its citizens or institutions) subject neither to foreign domination nor to despotic government.
"a free press"


synonyms: independent, self-governing, self-governed, self-ruling, self-determining, nonaligned, sovereign, autonomous; democratic
"a citizen of a free nation"

2.


not physically restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded.
"she lifted the cat free"


synonyms: unimpeded, unobstructed, unrestricted, unhampered, clear, open, unblocked
"the free flow of water"

One side holding power.......nope, not free.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It also isn't a free market because there are prices on the goods so the goods aren't free.[/snark]

One side having greater bargaining power doesn't mean it isn't a free market.

Sure it does. There is nothing organic about the outcome if one side has greater power. There is nothing natural about it and all you will end up with is a feudal system. Of course, it also depends on the eleven billion definition of 'free market'. It changes daily depending on to whom your talking.

Wait a minute, you're mixing up the difference between economic power and political power. You're pretending they are the same thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Research generally shows that bigger firms pay better wages (50% more compared to small businesses according to one study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0ebffed2f15_story.html?utm_term=.377a5a870312)

Where is the evidence for the assertion in the OP?

You're missing the fact that they're looking at cases where the larger company has little if any competition. The company town isn't good for the workers, even if it's just for one type of job.

Research generally shows that bigger firms pay better wages (50% more compared to small businesses according to one study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0ebffed2f15_story.html?utm_term=.377a5a870312)

Where is the evidence for the assertion in the OP?

Better for whom? Bigger companies also have execs and ceos paid/compensated with millions of dollars in lumb currency or in assets skewing the curve.

Leftists repeating this ad-nauseum doesn't make it true.

Even huge CEO "salaries" (the huge numbers are almost inevitably one-year bonuses for hitting some benchmark, not what they get each year) are a small fraction of 1% of the total payroll. They aren't going to make an appreciable effect on the overall numbers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All market wages are low wages.

"Market wage" means: Lowest possible wage for the employer.

According to the Law of Supply AND Demand, the employer does try to bid the wages down, just as the employee tries to bid the wages up. The resulting wage is in between, based on demand for labor, supply of labor, demand for wage, supply of wage, etc. But you don't care that the employee tries to bid the wages up, you only care that the employer tries to bid the wages down. It is fair for one party to demand, it is unfair for the other party to demand.

The resultant wage is always the lowest possible wage for the employer. Once they find people willing to take the wage they do not raise it.

That is how the system is set up.

To find that lowest possible wage.

The only things that have been known to raise it are unions and government mandates.

Quit your bible thumping.

Note the conditional: "once they find people willing to take the wage"--you're assuming they do. In a decent economy if they offer too little they won't find people who will accept it.

 

[untermensche]

The resultant wage is always the lowest possible wage for the employer.

AND the highest possible wage for the employee.

The highest possible wage is a system set up by employers.

To pay the lowest possible wage.

 

[untermensche]

The resultant wage is always the lowest possible wage for the employer. Once they find people willing to take the wage they do not raise it.

That is how the system is set up.

To find that lowest possible wage.

The only things that have been known to raise it are unions and government mandates.

Quit your bible thumping.

Note the conditional: "once they find people willing to take the wage"--you're assuming they do. In a decent economy if they offer too little they won't find people who will accept it.

The religion is believing that employers ever pay higher than the lowest possible wage.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The resultant wage is always the lowest possible wage for the employer.

AND the highest possible wage for the employee.

The highest possible wage is a system set up by employers.

To pay the lowest possible wage.

So you agree that while the employers are trying to pay as little as possible, the employees are trying to get paid as much as possible, thus resulting in an equilibrium where the two wages meet at the intersection of supply and demand.

Thus the lowest possible wage is also the highest possible wage at the same time.

 

[bilby]

It also isn't a free market because there are prices on the goods so the goods aren't free.[/snark]

One side having greater bargaining power doesn't mean it isn't a free market.

Sure it does. There is nothing organic about the outcome if one side has greater power. There is nothing natural about it and all you will end up with is a feudal system. Of course, it also depends on the eleven billion definition of 'free market'. It changes daily depending on to whom your talking.

Wait a minute, you're mixing up the difference between economic power and political power. You're pretending they are the same thing.

They are, and it is illuminating that you are pretending that they are not.

A man who dies on the gallows is no more dead than a man who starves for want of an income.

Both political and economic power are expressed on a scale from minor inconveniences (being briefly detained by a policeman, or being fired from a job when another is easy to find) to fatal consequences (execution or starvation).

That you chose a meme showing one extreme in the first example and the opposite extreme for the second, either implies that you are too stupid to spot the moving goalpost, or think that others will be - neither of which reflects well on you, or on the strength of your arguments.

 

[untermensche]

The highest possible wage is a system set up by employers.

To pay the lowest possible wage.

So you agree that while the employers are trying to pay as little as possible, the employees are trying to get paid as much as possible, thus resulting in an equilibrium where the two wages meet at the intersection of supply and demand.

Thus the lowest possible wage is also the highest possible wage at the same time.

The result is no magic equilibrium. That is a fairy tale.

A worker is alone and cannot survive alone for long.

They must take something very soon no matter how low it is.

They can only say no for so long.

An equilibrium exists when a worker can say no as easily as an employer can say no to paying more if somebody will take less.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The highest possible wage is a system set up by employers.

To pay the lowest possible wage.

So you agree that while the employers are trying to pay as little as possible, the employees are trying to get paid as much as possible, thus resulting in an equilibrium where the two wages meet at the intersection of supply and demand.

Thus the lowest possible wage is also the highest possible wage at the same time.

The result is no magic equilibrium. That is a fairy tale.

A worker is alone and cannot survive alone for long.

They must take something very soon no matter how low it is.

They can only say no for so long.

An equilibrium exists when a worker can say no as easily as an employer can say no to paying more if somebody will take less.

That's why doctors and engineers make minimum wage.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wait a minute, you're mixing up the difference between economic power and political power. You're pretending they are the same thing.

They are, and it is illuminating that you are pretending that they are not.

A man who dies on the gallows is no more dead than a man who starves for want of an income.

Both political and economic power are expressed on a scale from minor inconveniences (being briefly detained by a policeman, or being fired from a job when another is easy to find) to fatal consequences (execution or starvation).

That you chose a meme showing one extreme in the first example and the opposite extreme for the second, either implies that you are too stupid to spot the moving goalpost, or think that others will be - neither of which reflects well on you, or on the strength of your arguments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The result is no magic equilibrium. That is a fairy tale.

A worker is alone and cannot survive alone for long.

They must take something very soon no matter how low it is.

They can only say no for so long.

An equilibrium exists when a worker can say no as easily as an employer can say no to paying more if somebody will take less.

Nobody's claiming the equilibrium is magical. That doesn't mean it isn't real.

A worker can't survive long without working--but an employer can't survive long without hiring, also.

Note that just because the worker took something doesn't mean he can't look for something better. That's the main way by which workers improve their position--taking better jobs.