Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (91809)	8/24/2001 1:08:15 AM
From: shadowman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Don, Have you never heard of political influence? Right to work laws.....the legal right of an employer to hire replacement workers to combat a strike or work stoppage.....pressures put on employees by employers not to organize? There are many, many, layers to this discussion. It seems a little simplistic to assume that the explanation can be found solely in the economics of supply and demand. Economic and political forces have played critical roles in deciding how much power employers and employees are allowed. Many historical examples of employers having undue power....southern plantations for instance....pre-unionized auto factories, coal mines and on and on. Not to mention the historical differences in employee pay based on nothing more than gender. This employer/employee relationship is in a constant state of flux. To think that it exists in a natural unfettered state of supply and demand seems a bit naive.....or if one were working in the labor relations department of a large corporation, self serving.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (91809)	8/24/2001 2:08:14 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Don, I'm saying there is a social, as well as a purely economic component to the labor market. The labor market regularly behaves in ways that cannot be simply explained by supply and demand. Why do salaries easily rise in response to labor shortage in some professions, but nursing or teacher shortages must reach crisis proportions before any action is taken? Could it have something to do with the traditional resistance to paying real money to women? As you discussed in a previous post, when we discuss the minimum wage we are not discussing a simple transition from no impact on the market to major job destruction. There is a range which will have no effect on employment, a range which will have minimal effect on unemployment, a range which will affect business models and create labor blackmarkets, a range which will greatly increase unemployment, and a range which will destroy businesses The question is, how do you determine the boundaries of the ranges? And if you believe that it would benefit the country as a whole and the economy to raise the wages of the bottom 30% of the labor force, would it be a sensible public policy to set a minimum wage that had some effect on the labor market?