psychicscubadiver said:
I can only speak for myself but my profession has never had a union and I still get a great pay check. It does require a license and have a licensing board, but there is no form of collective bargaining and we've still come out just fine by depending on market forces to set our pay rate. |
Unions affect the wages of people who don't work in them. See: https://apwu.org/news/new-report-proves-how-unions-raise-bar-all-workers
Chrkeller said:
Or likely I got an advance degree in STEM which is highly desired, thus pays well. If people want to make a lot of money, pick a field that pays. I have friends who pick hobbies for their "career" and complain they are poor. Supply and demand. |
Again, this only works if you assume:
1. No knowledge asymmetries. Real-world labor markets are ridden with knowledge asymmetries. Predicting what the supply and demand of particular labor markets will be eight-twelve years from when you make a career-path decision, especially if you're going off outdated information, is not much less speculation than any other part of the economy. This is also true if you have very few social resources to help you. Monopolies of knowledge are real. For example this focus on STEM. Most STEM degrees aren't "highly desired" and "thus pays well." Especially when we talk about STEM fields that deal with fundamental knowledge that is far from a practical implementation and capital concentrations, like the Natural Sciences as an example
(I am an example of somebody who went from a Physics B.A -> M.S Data Analytics because there weren't professors retiring and academia is not a good career path these days. This is despite being accepted for a Physics PhD program.)
2. An absence of market failures, like monopsonies. A lot of critical work like: transportation, home health care, warehouse work, etc. exists in regions where a local monopsony or oligopsony exist and therefore suppresses wages to subsistence levels. This work must be done. The idea that the monopsony or oligopsony should be left to its own devices is not something most people are comfortable and it is a solidly right-wing view to argue that labor monopsonies or oligopsony should persist. Especially when they are less efficient and have deadweight losses.
3. Equality in primary, secondary, and tertiary educational opportunity. This doesn't exist in the United States. Different school districts have very different education qualities. Arguing that somebody who had poor primary and/or secondary education should just pursue a difficult degree and if they can't they should live in poverty is unethical in so much as those inequalities persist.
4. Capital is being appropriately invested by capitalists and labor market demand reflects real consumer demand. On the other-hand, we see many scenarios in our economy of malinvestment by capitalists being forgiven by bailouts/cost-shifting. Since capital is so concentrated, and there are adverse incentives introduced by cost-shifting, how do we know that the current demand curve represents what it would be without this cost-shifting? Why are the poor decisions of a capitalist a social problem where the risks are socialized but not that of an 18 year old deciding a career path?
All of these are reasons why it makes sense to not just allow pure supply and demand to take place in labor markets. There has to be some degree of insulation and protection of the working class if we are to allow capitalism to persist as the dominant social relationship of production.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 24 October 2022
