Right Wing Economics

That has nothing to do with my point that you quoted the first time. I stated I was talking about tight labor markets as we have today placing upward pressure on wages, especially if we continue to build jobs without a surplus of employees, which will force lower wage workers to seek better paying jobs that still require lesser levels of skills.

If you wanted to just talk about what happens in competitive markets, you probably need to start a thread. I didn't see anyone else talking about it.

 

James, I have pointed out before your ignorance when it comes to economics, religion, or humanity. Am not going to do it again. You are not worth the trouble, and too ignorant to understand.

 

They pay exactly the price demanded by their employees, no less.

 

I'm actually one of over a million federal workers and my job directly support the military. You were saying?

 

Employees should all pay their workers $0.01 per hour.

 

It's just another example of the fallacy of talking in aggregates by those who don't use economics. There is no "labor". There are millions of workers each with her own skill set and value to provide an employer.

 

So, your "employer" does make a profit. It is called "tax revenue".

Next.

 

absurd of course, if there is underpayment workers will move to over payment industries unless of course they prefer underpayment.

Does the libcommie what a massive continuous govt police effort to continuously correct what the libNazi bureaucrats see as underpayments. Now you've found 10,009 ways for your libNazi govt to intefere with the free market and mess it up soviet style!

 

Then perhaps you can explain how an annual deficit is a profit?

 

tax revenue is not profit

 

That's inaccurate. I said that "we'd actually expect greater underpayment in apparently more competitive industries". That is confirmed by both labour theory and empirical evidence.

You're referring to a time series effect. I've referred to a cross sectional one. More competitive industries actually exhibit greater underpayment.

Its naive to ignore the impact of competition. Time series effects, given underpayment associated with wage making power, can only refer to temporary reductions in underpayment.

 

What happens to wages in those same companies facing business growth in an economy at full employment?

 

Underpayment? Under what, exactly?

 

As I said, full employment merely reduces underpayment. The effects will arguably be skewed towards large companies (which do tend to underpay less), given the characteristics of collective bargaining.

 

and each with their own idea of what job they want and can handle. I used to pay workers less but they still worked for me because I didn't fire them if they took a day or 2 a week off. When they didn't like it they switched to another firm but often came back because they lacked the discipline and need for a 40 hour week,

 

It is borrowed, creates debt, and, in government terms, is a "profit". It is the means by which you are paid.

Then too, government is not a business, so you are actually on "welfare" since your wage comes from the taxpayer, and whatever taxes you pay is simply returning a percentage of your "welfare" check.

 

this is something only a libnazi economist bureaucrat with a Ph.D and computers can determine!

 

taxes to govt would be more like sales revenue to a company. neither obviously is profit

 

do you get everything wrong? ususally you don't work for welfare, that s why they call it welfare?

 

Can you give an example where you witness underpayment in normal markets (and I'm talking within the US, not foreign operations of a US company)? Are you referring to Marx' idea of a worker never earning his/her full worth because the sold product comes with a profit to the business owner? If not, please help us all understand what you mean so we're talking about the same thing.

Collective bargaining is meaningless in my discussed points.

 

if there is underpayment where are the wonderful industries that over pay?

 

It might also be useful for @Reiver to explain exactly under what the worker is being paid.

 

I did actually chuckle at that. You assume our military men and women would be properly equipped, trained, and supplied without an entire acquisition support structure. Just making sure you realize you just made that kind of uninformed comment in an economic discussion.

I know full well where the money comes from. I'm one of those guys who makes sure others are using sufficient due diligence on every funding allocation so we're treating YOUR tax dollars appropriately. I hear all the time online about federal workers, lazy, do nothing, etc., from people without a clue about the amount of dedication government workers give every day. It's thankless work, but funny to hear from others who seem to know so much about it, especially when they're so far off base as to call it welfare...as if I didn't earn it.

 

Already have, with the article on monopsonistic markets. Evidence is also available through the work by the likes of Burdett and Mortensen. You could empirically test it yourself. Just take any labour data set and run a stochastic frontier.

Nope. No mention of Marx at all. Its basic supply & demand. If a firm has wage making power (i.e. it faces an upward sloping labour supply schedule), it will underpay.

Not really. With your time series focus, you've essentially gone back to the importance of relative bargaining power. Unions can maximise that power.

 

to a libMarxist workers are always underpaid and the over paid workers don't really exist, somehow.