Live data from Hacker News

Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

bloomberg.com

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#21
post #11
post #7

That's because depressed wages are caused by the drive for ever increasing profits.

Yes but the workers have a drive for increasing profits too, and there are more of them. So that's not really a good explanation.

More workers only equates to more leverage if they can collectively exert control to suppress production, like via a strike.

Apart from that, more workers who are mostly interchangeable have lower leverage to increase their wages.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#22
post #8
post #5

It should be pointed out that studies of small increases of minimum wage that show modest harm do not immediately tell us that huge increases of minimum wage will not cause greater harm. Remember that $15/hour is more than the median wage in much of the country.

These jobs that are worth less than $15 per hour are going to be the first to be replaced by machines so whatever happens we need a solution to give people at the bottom high(er) quality lives.

It'll always be cheaper to pay minimum wage to mop floors vs a $250,000+ "AI Mopping Machine" that requires a $55hr Tech to maintain.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#23
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm largely in favor of a $15 minimum wage, but I agree that if we were going to do this on a national level as opposed to local it would be prudent to phase it in over time so that there is time for pulling back if trouble beings to emerge.

How do you decide what the appropriate level is, gut feeling? I'm afraid that debates over what the number should be obscures debate over the harder question of what is causing the minimum wage to have to keep increasing. The question we should be asking is why are we devaluing the completed labor of the lowest wage classes?

The idea is to progressively increase minimum wage, until it starts to affect unemployment rate. After that point, it may be a better policy to increase fiscal redistribution, through welfare, basic income, etc.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#24
Supply and demand does a great job of explaining depressed wages. We had two kinds supply shocks in the recent history in the labor market. One is women entering the workforce and the second is mass immigration.

Both coincided at the end of the 60s and 70s. Exactly since then wages are not correlated to productivity anymore and are basically stagnating.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#25
Traditional supply and demand economics implies open and equal information for buyer (employer) and seller (employee). For goods and services, there is transparency in the price of a product. In the labor relationship, the buyer (employer) holds almost all of the information that impacts price (wages).

- Employers know how many candidates they have for a position.

- Employers know what they have paid for that position in the past.

- Employers can often afford to wait longer to decide.

It should also be noted that the US taxes wages at a higher rate than investment or dividend earnings. This may distort the market as certain income streams are incentivized over others.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#26
post #10

The world is not driven by economics (and its simplistic assumptions), it's driven by power relations and human nature. Supply and demand is not the only thing to influence the job market -- power and knowledge asymmetries can do the same thing just as well.

What is the difference between economics and power relations?

Human nature I understand -- people have mental/emotional shortcuts that are not precise and accurate rational analysis.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#27
post #8
post #5

It should be pointed out that studies of small increases of minimum wage that show modest harm do not immediately tell us that huge increases of minimum wage will not cause greater harm. Remember that $15/hour is more than the median wage in much of the country.

These jobs that are worth less than $15 per hour are going to be the first to be replaced by machines so whatever happens we need a solution to give people at the bottom high(er) quality lives.

I would predict that there is a lot of work that would otherwise be done, if minimum wage was lower, that simply will not be done at all. Or it'll be done under the table.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#28
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the workers have a drive for increasing profits too, and there are more of them. So that's not really a good explanation.

Workers have less power to increase wages than corporations have to increase revenue and profits. This has occurred, arguably, because of right to work laws and the reduction in organized labor (which previously negotiated wages with more power).

Is that true? A corporation that relies on 50,000+ employees to deliver a service or product, and those employees collectively stop working?

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#29
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These jobs that are worth less than $15 per hour are going to be the first to be replaced by machines so whatever happens we need a solution to give people at the bottom high(er) quality lives.

It'll always be cheaper to pay minimum wage to mop floors vs a $250,000+ "AI Mopping Machine" that requires a $55hr Tech to maintain.

True, until the AI mopping machine is 500$ and it us cheaper to throw it away and replace it when breaks.

Re: Supply and Demand Does a Poor Job of Explaining Depressed Wages

#30
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm largely in favor of a $15 minimum wage, but I agree that if we were going to do this on a national level as opposed to local it would be prudent to phase it in over time so that there is time for pulling back if trouble beings to emerge.

How do you decide what the appropriate level is, gut feeling? I'm afraid that debates over what the number should be obscures debate over the harder question of what is causing the minimum wage to have to keep increasing. The question we should be asking is why are we devaluing the completed labor of the lowest wage classes?

What the appropriate value for minimum wage is largely a social question not an economic one. I would stipulate, however, that whatever you think that value is it should probably be a real value, not nominal. The real value of our minimum wage has gone up here and there but it took a huge hit in the 80s and hasn't ever been adjusted back up to what it was before then.
Post reply on HN