So, why don't you walk us through your job interview for your current job. Did they tell you the salary range or did you say "I want this" and they said "ok".
Not when the buyer rationalizes he'll have to pay more for what he's already bought. Listen to the podcast. I updated my post.
Employers pay shit because they don't want to raise all their employees' wages. Has fuck-all to do with "free markets." Nobel Awarded. Or listen if you're reading disabled (jump to 2:30 if you're easily bored). https://www.marketplace.org/2021/10...-testing-econ-101-theories-in-the-real-world/ employers are "willing to put up with vacancies in return for keeping wages lower on their current employees." @ 3:30 "Employers set wages, they aren't set by some abstract market". @4:30
If you're legally protected with a minimum wage, don't cry exploitation. The wage is already higher than market rate.
and those damn slaves better be happy with the food rations and pitiable lodgings I give them. I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone thinks your posts are anything but shit.
So? A business has to consider its total cost of remaining in business. If it's more beneficial to have fewer employees but at a lower rate, so be it. False. I'm in the midst of trying to hire someone right now and I may not get him because we're not willing to pay what he can get elsewhere. Different firms can have differing (sometimes widely) differing estimates of an employee's value, because the employers are not identically situated.
Not slaves, they're free to seek better arrangements. Sorry if the way the world works is too much for you to handle. Remind me: what's your fix? Who's going to determine wages in your ideal world?
Above a certain skill level, naturally people can negotiate wages. Depends on sector and skill. Don't fucking pretend because you found an exception at the higher end that Joe BurgerFlipper can do that.
If such a minimum wage is not high enough to prevent exploitation, I'll certainly point it out, regardless of what the "market rate" might be. It is a recurring issue in capitalism (the real version, not the pretend version being peddled) that market discipline is used as a stick with which to beat the poor, whereas no such discipline is enforced for the rich - and the very entities with whom people are being asked to agree "market rates" with are a radical violation of free markets.
So ..., I'm a data analyst and I am free to seek better arrangements. If I'm already at the top of what corporation have already stated is the high for this job, where are my options? Edit: I also notice you didn't respond to my previous question asking if you told your present boss what your salary was going to be.
Any employer will look at multiple factors before setting wages. One major one is the churn rate. If not enough people are leaving, they will keep wages stagnant. It's not easy to leave a job. The only thing more stressful to most is a loved one dying.
If an employer offers a job at a salary consistent with prevailing market rates for such a position, is it exploitation? (a) Yes (b) No (c) It depends on the circumstances of the applicant If the answer is (c) then what's the solution? To make the business pay more based on the individual applicant's situation? To pay more for anyone taking the job? Suppose Bob can take the job at $17/hour and get by fine, but Joe needs $20/hour because of his particular circumstances. If both can do the job, what justification is there for hiring Joe over Bob? If market rate for the job is $17/hour, should Joe be excluded from the position since it doesn't cover his needs?
Nope. Minimum wage employees are relatively interchangeable because they don't have valuable skills. That's why they're minimum wage.
We're back to this bullshit are we? Society didn't nearly fall over without them being forced to work through a global pandemic, did it?
Choose another career? Accept a lower paying job with more growth potential elsewhere? Explore ways to advance at your current employer? But again, your lack (or perceived lack) of options doesn't obligate others to make life better for you. You have to do that for yourself. We negotiated it based on an increase from my then-current salary [he had to pay more to entice me to leave] and what he was willing to pay. I'm content with what I got, but I think he got a real deal.
The three choices you offer are insufficient. There are other variables to consider and there are certainly cases that might be arguable. But it is possible to imagine clearcut cases too.
OMG.... you just listen to all propaganda, don't you? What "valuable skills" does a receptionist have that allows a $15/wage that someone 'flipping burgers' doesn't have? For that matter, what 'valuable skills' does a data analyst have that a burger flipper doesn't? What are the valuable skills you have that make you so much more valuable as an employee that you can't be easily replaced therefore deserving of higher pay?
If wages were based on actual ability, UA's, or any job requiring physical strength would be paid more than I am. You're argument makes zero sense.
Did you just Godwin yourself? Or it depends on a lot of different potential factors, including the circumstances of the applicant, the nature of the work/market etc. Take the example of a college athlete for a major school in a major sport. The market for college athletes is artificially depressed by the NCAA, so that such student-athletes earn essentially room/board/scholarship and the potential to translate their work to make millions as a pro athlete. In exchange, they generate millions in revenue for the university. Getting paid at the market rate for student athletes is inherently exploitative because the difference between the pay and the value the student athlete brings. On the flipside, take the example of a sweatshop worker. Let's say the prevailing wage in China is 3 cents an hour for work that in the U.S. would be at least $7.25/hour. It doesn't matter that the local market considers 3 cents/hour a fair wage. It's exploitative.
As for student athletes, they are also expected to spend the majority of the time training and practicing. at the detriment of their grades - and the teachers/professors are coerced into giving them passing grades anyway. So, if they don't get that multi-million dollar job in professional sports, they are almost always worse off after college than they were before.
Just illustrating that all organizations are inherently composed of humans. There are no non-human actors. Human doesn't necessarily imply humanity. Organizations must be judged on their intents, actions, results. That its members are human doesn't count for anything. Uh, not a market rate. Inherently non-market. Market doesn't mean "usual" or "customary" or "prevailing." A market rate is one in which all buyers and sellers can seek their best price and that prices are consistent with supply and demand. NOT the case here. I highlighted some of your text that proves it Not necessarily. Labor does not have a fixed value across all contexts. I can as easily argue that the person receiving $7.25/hour is grossly overpaid given that similar labor can be obtained at 3¢/hour. And a lower wage does not necessarily indicate exploitation (even if one accepts that exploitation can occur with willing participation of the exploited). Standards and costs of living can be vastly different. Decreeing that some labor is worth (and can only therefore be compensated at a rate of) $7.25/hour dooms those in developing countries to unemployment. Their only advantage in the market is price.
So Citizen's United needs to be abolished? That's what I'm hearing. Clear as a bell. Citizen's United needs to be abolished. I agree.
Oh look! FF rated my post “dumb” everyone act surp It's okay for businesses to collude and establish what they consider a "fair" salary, but it's not okay for workers to join together and collectively bargain for what they consider a fair salary. Interesting.
People in a corporation merge into a Voltron so thoroughly, that corporations are people. But if labor makes a Voltron, it's a BAD Voltron, and therefore not people.
If we're talking about the real world, then let's talk about the real world. I work in the restaurant business and because of the labor shortage, wages are going up and a lot of places are offering hiring bonuses. The place I work, we're all getting raises because everyone else is paying more and my place is behind the times. They'd rather keep their current employers rather than hiring new ones. Why? because they'd have to pay higher wages anyway. You know what that's called? The market setting wages.
Maybe Joe has a better resume and can bring more to the table than Bob meet Joe's salary requirements.
