in fact it doesn't exist in a meaningful form. I asked reiver 26 times for best example and finally he came up with "cheeck out Apple" our biggest most beloved company that we would die to have 10 others like. He's a liberal joker and nothing more. Its the height of liberal Nazi meglomnaia to pretend he could regulate Apple when they just regulated themselves into the biggest company in the history of commerce.
limited?? wages have gone from $o to $55k a year average in USA. That's not a limited gain but a huge monumental gain. It was caused by the very nature of capitalism ie you must always pay the highest amount possible or go bankrupt to those who do. What causes the increased ability to pay always higher wages? New inventions that make workers more productive. Thats exactly how we got for $0 to $55k and that's what Republican capitalists encourage and liberal Democrats don't.
That wouldn't be true. I've told you the nature of the market failure (providing two sources in support), I've shown that it develops in all markets (making your previous comments based on 'company towns' irrelevant), I've given empirical evidence that measure the underpayment. Note that the UK twins both greater underpayment and a tight labour market (which you can't respond to). Note also that the US is similar to the British labour market. Both adopt neo-liberalism, with little union power and significant productivity gaps. First, you haven't understand how monopsony is applied in modern economics. That was demonstrated with your "Textbooks describe tiny mining towns where the mine company is pretty much the only employer" comment. As I've already stated, the theoretical and empirical evidence refers to how underpayment increases as competition increases. This helps explain, for example, why small firms pay less than their larger counterparts. Second, I've not only told you how its quantified I have given you an example of the empirical analysis. You first need to understand it. It has naff all to do with company towns. I've focused on one form generated through asymmetric information. Can it be fixed? It certainly can be reduced. Minimum wages provide one mechanism to redistribute the subsequent economic rents.
I didn't ask for empirical evidence. I asked for real examples, which you either won't or can't produce. You're discussing the British labor market as a tangent to your non-answer about the actual topic of the US and heading toward full employments, along with its impact on wages. I haven't, nor do I care to, discussed the UK's situation other than to try to get back on topic. Because I was trying to explain it to people not familiar with economics. I chose not to bore them with the rambling you've provided over and over, still without more than theory. I truly don't even care about its impact if you cannot relate it directly, and with a valid, real-world example, because theory is both uninteresting and irrelevant if it doesn't apply to the situation in a way we can both measure and figure out why, how, who, when, what. I've studied economics far longer than I cared to, so please stop attempting to appear the source of knowledge on a topic not one person in this thread has yet cared about. Theory bores me so let's apply it or move on. You can't apply what you know in theory in a meaningful way and it obviously frustrates you. I'm not your economics student so it leaves me unimpressed since I very well do understand the topic, as well as your inability to put the writings of others you may have studied into the context of the situation and discussion. Should you choose to ignore my specific, very clear request for a real-world example applicable to wages in the context of the US labor market approaching full employment, then please just have a great day because I will no longer respond until you do provide the information requested many times. That's your challenge, not mine. I understand the topic and have engaged. Your turn.
I think the phenomenon he's talking about exists for some workers(not the good ones), but that 'monopsony' is a misnomer.
You're not making sense. Case study example would be relevant if I was referring to traditional monopsony or monopoly. I'm not. I'm referring to how all labour markets naturally have market failure associated with monopsony. That means all firms have wage making power. Given that, the evidence should refer to the consequence of this power on labour market outcomes. That necessarily refers to empirical evidence which tests for underpayment (and/or tests the theoretical predictions of dynamic monopsony, such as whether reservation wages are related to the magnitude of job search costs). The British example is a particularly important case study. It has followed labour market flexibility since 1979. It has also seen significant tightening of the labour markets. It is also a perfect example of how your predictions on wage impact have not come to fruition. There hasn't been any wage growth. That simply is untrue. You referred to traditional monopsony, when everything I've said has been focused on dynamic monopsony. You deliberately tried to use the 'company town' textbook example, when I've already proved (via Burdett and Mortensen's contribution) that underpayment and firm size are negatively related. Again you have been free with the truth. This has been about how theory adapted to empirical analysis into labour market outcomes. Without monopsony it is exceedingly difficult to explain the lack of a market wage. You'd have to suggest rampant nepotism and discrimination. You'd have to suggest that a firm is incapable of following profit maximisation agenda. Again I've referred directly to the empirical evidence. Underpayment is the norm. All we've done, after all, is drop the assumption of perfect knowledge in 'supply & demand'. An economist knows that theory is vital to construct testable hypothesis. Without theory we have no means to understand real world outcome. Of course the nature of labour economic analysis here is even more circular. It was empirical finding that forced the economist to reconsider their understanding of monopsony. Sorry, again untrue. It would actually be ludicrous to suggest that job search frictions do not exist. That dynamic monopsony is the norm is clear cut. The empirical question, however, is the extent that each form of monopsonistic power dominates. The repercussions for policy, such as the impact of minimum wages, will differ. A simple approach, for example, based on transportation costs will not have the same positive understanding of minimum wages as dynamic monopsony. The latter, just like traditional monopsony, predicts both wage and employment gains. You wouldn't misinterpret (like the example you gave on mining) if you understood. Again you make no logical sense. This isn't about a real world example of traditional monopsony. They rarely, if at all in developed countries, exist. This is about modern forms of monopsony which impact, by definition, on all labour markets. Pick a firm, any firm! Yes, it has monopsony power. Now pick another! Yes, that too has monopsony power etc etc etc
You didn't even try. You even said, "Pick a firm, any firm!" And then you didn't pick one, quantify the impact, estimate the upcoming impact within our trending labor market, or support it with data or theory directly related to your claim. Try again.
Then again, it entails psychoanalysis(which is outside the purview of economics) of market actors, which lands this theory outside of economic 'science'(if you qualify soft-sciences as science).
I've replied with logic. You want an example? Given dynamic monopsony, by definition, impacts on all firms you can refer to any firm. Its not a difficult concept to understand. Given all workers experience the consequence of dynamic monopsony, any impact has to be understood at the market level. I've already demonstrated that (and supported it with both theory and empirical evidence)
It's the worker who has wage making power. If the wage is not sufficient, the worker refuses to work. The worker determines his wage.
Nope, still haven't met the question requirements. I can wait. Surely since it's every firm impacted, you can quantify it at at least one or more. I want to know what impact your giant monopsony boogeyman will have on the US labor market and wages as it approaches full employment. Quantify the impact or stop trying to tapdance around it. After all, it's your topic now because you can't let it go.
I'm pretty sure he asked you to quantify that impact. Do you have an estimate, even? I mean, even Kinsella, who is not an economist, at least tries to estimate the annual cost of IP law at between 2-4 trillion.
No. The wage is agreed. Neither worker nor employer determines the wage. The wage is determined between the two of them.
Actually, I like that better. They both have the ability to walk away from the deal until the price satisfies both of them. Both can veto the wage, but they both must agree to set the wage.
Sorry, I can only maintain a logical approach which correctly integrates theory and empirical evidence. The idea of referring to a specific example, when dynamic monopsony impacts on all firms is ludicrous. Does dynamic monopsony predict labour market outcomes? Yes. That's been tested by the likes of Burdett and Mortensen. Can we come out with estimates of the size of underpayment? Yes, that's merely an issue of adapting wage equation analysis. Analysis is obviously at the market level. There is no market wage to compare with, after all. You can make general predictions over underpayment. We've seen that with, for example, the firm size effect analysis. We simple have a wage distribution of various levels of underpayment. There is no notion here of firms being discriminatory (such as targeting firms which show different racial or gender wage gaps). They are simply attempting to maximise profit. You're asking for repetition. Monopsony ensures that American workers are underpaid. What happens as you approach full employment? There will of course be differences across labour markets. However, the British example already provides evidence of what you can expect with highly flexible neo-liberal labour markets: a deepening of the productivity gap.
I've already concurred, many many many many posts ago, that monopsony happens. That we can't determine its direct impact to specific examples makes me really not care. It's just a given...akin to saying people will breathe tomorrow. We know it happens and we can't change or stop it. Let's just move on for the sake of boredom. I still have no interest in discussing economic theories, or even phenomena, that happen only visibly in the aggregate. If we can't drill down on it, it just doesn't matter in this discussion.
This is the economics section mate. For Empirical evidence you need to be in the science section. Here you will get spurious statistics and mumbo jumbo talk. Big invented words with no meaning interspersed with the odd graph illustrating a political belief. I definitely agree with your common sense approach of applying theories to actual circumstances to test them. I also think that pure theorising is frankly childish. Immature. An exercise in whacking off mentally.
Let's not forget, mind you, that you got it wrong. I've already shown that we can. We know that the market wage does not exist. Wage differentials exist which are alien to the human capital model. Bhasker et al., for example, found that - after controlling for 903 dummy variables to take into account gender, race, education, location and occupation- the 'teenager at the 90th percentile still earns 63 percent more than the one at the tenth percentile'. I've also referred directly to overall impact on the wage distribution, with Hofler and Murphy finding 10% reduction in wage relative to productivity. You again question your own background in economics. Economists aren't keen on data mining. They have to use theory to derive testable hypothesis. We have something more here mind you. We had empirical evidence confirming that supply & demand, as the textbook knew it in the 1970s, couldn't explain the wage distribution. We therefore have labour economists developing monopsony analysis to provide that explanation. We've then had empirical analysis into the validity of that theory. We've then also had empirical testing of the consequences of that analysis for the wage distribution. By ignoring all of that analysis, you've drastically handicapped your ability to understand the labour market (and therefore economic outcome)
Again, that is inaccurate. This is about how you have ignored how underpayment is the norm. It has also been used to show that it is naive to automatically assume that a tight labour market will eliminate that underpayment.
Nope, you still haven’t answered the only question I have repeatedly asked you to answer. Don’t lecture me on what you think I do or don’t know. Answer or stop responding with the monopsony argument you can’t even define in real world applicability in this and upcoming actual environments. Stop pointing to what you think you have said and formulate an answer. Otherwise, existing impacts of monopsony are irrelevant because they’re intangible.
then show me, as I asked repeatedly, it’s impacts and how those impacts would change as we approach full employment. If they never change, then I do not care because it is not part of anyone’s discussion except yours.
You continue to make illogical claims. I've referred to 'real world applicability'. I managed to do that by: (1) Showing that monopsony has to be included into supply and demand; (2) Giving empirical analysis which measures the resulting underpayment.
