Why punish consumers who have to pay higher prices to subsidize the higher labor cost?
But it's not employers that are being punished.
We are ALL "punished" because companies are prevented from producing as much and hiring all the help they could in order to improve their service to us as consumers. We are all punished by having to pay higher prices in order to pay all the extra costs that are imposed onto employers.
Why is it good to do this injury or harm to all consumers by forcing them to pay all the higher prices that are necessary in order to subsidize all the whining crybaby employees most of whom could easily be replaced by workers at lower wages?
There happens to be an imbalance of power, and it's weighed heavily in favour of the employer...unless there happens to be a labour shortage . . .
And all consumers benefit from the lower labor cost of business due to the oversupply of labor. Aren't we all better off when a company is able to save on costs by replacing those expensive workers with machines, as they continue to do? And so why aren't we also better off when it is able to replace them with lower-cost labor?
Why is it that that the employer-bashing "living wage" crusaders never answer the above question?
I'll repeat it again, for the continuing non-answer which it always receives:
Why isn't it good to replace higher-paid workers with lower-paid workers, to save on labor cost, just as it's good to replace them with machines? Why isn't that good for consumers?
. . . (not being common) like the mining boom in Australia (while it lasted), . . .
It's OK for labor cost to increase when there's a labor shortage. Consumers benefit from that, because otherwise the needed work wouldn't get done, which would be bad for consumers. Better to get some needed work done, even at higher costs/prices than to not get the work done at all.
But when there's an oversupply of labor, it is right for the workers to be paid less, because consumers benefit from this, and this benefit to consumers is the whole point of business, not providing higher-than-necessary incomes to whining workers.
. . . or the employees are a part of a strong union and are able to negotiate collectively.
To the detriment of consumers, who are always better served by competition rather than price-fixing or wage-fixing.
MW workers are not usually in that position. The employer holds the cards and dictates terms and conditions - ''take it or leave it.''
It's true -- those who have low value also have low leverage or bargaining power. Their low compensation rightly reflects their low value, and if they want more, they can either improve their performance and thus their value, or they can whine and be crybabies, which is what the "living wage" is all about.
It is the job applicant who is disadvantaged.
Yes, those who are of lower value and in great oversupply justifiably are disadvantaged in the market, because they aren't needed much and are so easy to replace. Dime-a-dozen job applicants should not expect to have much bargaining position, and though a company might hire some of them out of pity, or as an act of charity, the more successful workers generally will be those who gain advancement from improving themselves and making themselves more valuable, not by whining and demanding pity, such as through "living wage" or other welfare or charity schemes to make parasites out of them rather than productive performers in the economy.
The employer sits in the position of power. The power to hire or decline.
Yes, those who are more valuable and are taking greater risk and who are in shorter supply and in greater demand, because of the greater value or benefit they offer, have more bargaining power and more need to control cost and turn down someone of low value and discriminate in favor of higher quality and better performance, and especially to not waste the company's assets on paying its suppliers (including wage-earners) out of pity instead of their performance.
So the employers do make those necessary choices, deservedly having a wider range of choices to make out of their responsibility to serve consumers, and yet the market does penalize them if they make the wrong choices, and their wrong decisions can lead to far greater cost and damage to the economy than that of a whining job applicant not getting hired or a whining worker not being paid more than his/her value.
So this 'poor employer' line just does represent the job market . . .
Why do you put quote marks around this, as though you are quoting someone? "poor employer" is your term. Quote marks are supposed to be used when someone else used the term first, unless you acknowledge that you are introducing the term yourself for the first time.
No, it's the wage-earners who are whining and demanding pity, not the employers. They are the ones demanding more than their value, and demanding laws to force employers to pay them more than they are worth, and thus forcing all consumers to pay higher prices than necessary. And it's all of us, not just employers, who are punished in order to subsidize the whining wage-earners who have to be paid more than is necessary to get the needed work done.
The idea of business is to maximize profits, so if an employer sees no need to pay their employees a higher rate, they won't.
And of course the employer should NOT pay any higher, because this is not only bad for the company but also for the whole society. The idea that the employer should pay higher than is needed is the same as the idea that the workers should be paid out of PITY for them instead of for their performance. And it's PERFORMANCE by workers that is good for society, not pity for them.
It's this lack of individual bargaining power of employees that's reflected in the extremely low pay of MW workers.
Yes, low bargaining power due to their low value. Precisely. They are paid low because
their VALUE IS LOW. You are correct to note that their low pay is due to their low value.
It is not the employer who suffers the consequences of barely being able to make ends meet despite working full time in productive work, but the employee.
But how "productive" is that work? If that worker can easily be replaced, then that work has a low value and is very low in its "productive" contribution to the economy. Just because that worker burns lots of calories does not make the work "productive" or valuable.
There are plenty of employers who suffer from barely being able to make ends meet, especially those on the margin, starting up, or taking high risk. And what they risk and might lose is far greater than what any employee stands to lose.
But it is not necessary to pander to either the struggling employee/job-seeker or to the struggling company/employer. We have no need for crybaby companies demanding corporate welfare that we all have to pay for, anymore than for crybaby low-paid employees whining for "living wage" or other government pity that all the rest of us will have to pay for.
It is not the employee who profits from a business which is paying as little as possible for service rendered, but the owner or shareholders.
And consumers who would have to pay the higher labor cost in the form of higher prices.
You're right, those of low value also receive low profit. However, there are some workers of high value who do profit. It is good that those of higher value, such as the better workers, and also the investors and business owners and shareholders, get more profit than those of low value, like the dime-a-dozen low-paid workers.
And those low-paid workers who can do nothing but whine and whine and whine will remain the low-value pitiful drain on our economy that they are, consuming more than they produce, and driving up the prices all the rest of us have to pay.