We are mostly in agreement. I'm pretty sure we need to sympathize with employers in situations like this, at times, though. It doesn't help anyone to reduce every shortage to a supposed moral fault in the employers lol. At what point do we become sympathetic to them? When their business is crucial to society and can't function without the workers at the given price? Or is it when the market rate for a job is offensive to other kinds of workers at jobs of similar difficulty? I think the societal need is a plausible reason, but it leads to this slippery slope we started off complaining about. It boils down to: who's to say how expensive is too expensive, or that a business should fail because of a politically imposed scarcity of labor?
we need to sympathize with employers in situations like this, at times
Of course, at times, yes. Not at this time in American history, clearly.
When their business is crucial to society and can't function without the workers at the given price
Yes, absolutely, if by "given price" you mean "the price Americans should reasonably be paid". But this particular combination of two things is probably nonexistent.
a business should fail because of a politically imposed scarcity of labor?
Again, probably not what would actually happen. If businesses are forced to hire Americans, they would not "fail". Rather, investors/leadership may choose to go do some other more-profitable business, but not because the business can't survive. We are talking about the lack of socially normal humans in US leadership, not economic constraints. I.e. the kind of person you have to compel to be a non-negative force in society via legislation. Not every country, now or in history, has to deal with this problem. It's definitely a weird one. But it's what we're dealing with right now. Yes, there have always been unscrupulous Scrooges among those running things, but often their goals happen to benefit society as a whole enough that we don't have to step in this dramatically.
>When their business is crucial to society and can't function without the workers at the given price
Yes, absolutely, if by "given price" you mean "the price Americans should reasonably be paid". But this particular combination of two things is probably nonexistent.
That isn't really what I meant. It is conceivable that there could be a critical business for which there are simply not enough workers to meet demand at the price customers can afford. I think there is an underlying assumption that if the money is there, the workers will be too. Generally, that is how things work in the long run, but in the case of skilled vocations there can be a long lag before qualified people step in.
What I'm describing here is just acknowledging the demand curve for labor and its implications. It's very basic economics. If the input costs for a product go up too high, it will necessarily reduce the consumption regardless of how badly wanted the product happens to be. I don't think it is tenable in the long term to have have a majority of people in society clamoring for something that is too expensive because of labor, especially to the benefit of a cartel of workers who these people also regard as overpaid. I think the immigration of medical doctors is one of these in the extreme. Most people think doctors are paid well, and do not care if doctors don't like immigration because they perceive the prices to be too high. There may be many reasons that healthcare is expensive, but a tight supply of qualified labor is obviously one of these.
> [Who's to say that] a business should fail because of a politically imposed scarcity of labor?
Again, probably not what would actually happen. If businesses are forced to hire Americans, they would not "fail". Rather, investors/leadership may choose to go do some other more-profitable business, but not because the business can't survive.
I think you are forgetting that businesses can and do lose money all the time. Most businesses fail, in fact. The point of investing is to make a profit. If that cannot be attained after a reasonable ramp up period, then investors will eat their losses and go away. That is the definition of a business not surviving. If you can't show that your expenses (including labor) will eventually result in a profit, then you don't have a viable business idea and no investor would sink money into it.
The classic case of this happening is all the factories that closed due to competition in China and elsewhere. Those factories indeed had to hire Americans for their physical proximity, if nothing else, and at that price point they could not sustain themselves. Even having higher quality did not save most of them. Consumers didn't care enough about quality or patriotism to sustain those factories.
We are talking about the lack of socially normal humans in US leadership, not economic constraints. I.e. the kind of person you have to compel to be a non-negative force in society via legislation.
It is totally an economic problem: oversupply of labor driven by market dynamics. The solution that helps American workers is to slow down immigration by a lot. It has knock-on effects though, such as higher prices and potentially lower quality for a lot of things. It would also shift people around within the domestic economy.
Yes, there have always been unscrupulous Scrooges among those running things, but often their goals happen to benefit society as a whole enough that we don't have to step in this dramatically.
Profit-seeking behavior lowers prices for everyone in the long run. If I were to summarize the problem I would say: Extreme exchange ratios and rapid/easy movement of resources internationally are causing threats to certain sectors of the workforce, including national security threats and impoverishment of skilled workers in wealthy nations (especially the US).
Comments
We are mostly in agreement. I'm pretty sure we need to sympathize with employers in situations like this, at times, though. It doesn't help anyone to reduce every shortage to a supposed moral fault in the employers lol. At what point do we become sympathetic to them? When their business is crucial to society and can't function without the workers at the given price? Or is it when the market rate for a job is offensive to other kinds of workers at jobs of similar difficulty? I think the societal need is a plausible reason, but it leads to this slippery slope we started off complaining about. It boils down to: who's to say how expensive is too expensive, or that a business should fail because of a politically imposed scarcity of labor?
Of course, at times, yes. Not at this time in American history, clearly.
Yes, absolutely, if by "given price" you mean "the price Americans should reasonably be paid". But this particular combination of two things is probably nonexistent.
Again, probably not what would actually happen. If businesses are forced to hire Americans, they would not "fail". Rather, investors/leadership may choose to go do some other more-profitable business, but not because the business can't survive. We are talking about the lack of socially normal humans in US leadership, not economic constraints. I.e. the kind of person you have to compel to be a non-negative force in society via legislation. Not every country, now or in history, has to deal with this problem. It's definitely a weird one. But it's what we're dealing with right now. Yes, there have always been unscrupulous Scrooges among those running things, but often their goals happen to benefit society as a whole enough that we don't have to step in this dramatically.
That isn't really what I meant. It is conceivable that there could be a critical business for which there are simply not enough workers to meet demand at the price customers can afford. I think there is an underlying assumption that if the money is there, the workers will be too. Generally, that is how things work in the long run, but in the case of skilled vocations there can be a long lag before qualified people step in.
What I'm describing here is just acknowledging the demand curve for labor and its implications. It's very basic economics. If the input costs for a product go up too high, it will necessarily reduce the consumption regardless of how badly wanted the product happens to be. I don't think it is tenable in the long term to have have a majority of people in society clamoring for something that is too expensive because of labor, especially to the benefit of a cartel of workers who these people also regard as overpaid. I think the immigration of medical doctors is one of these in the extreme. Most people think doctors are paid well, and do not care if doctors don't like immigration because they perceive the prices to be too high. There may be many reasons that healthcare is expensive, but a tight supply of qualified labor is obviously one of these.
I think you are forgetting that businesses can and do lose money all the time. Most businesses fail, in fact. The point of investing is to make a profit. If that cannot be attained after a reasonable ramp up period, then investors will eat their losses and go away. That is the definition of a business not surviving. If you can't show that your expenses (including labor) will eventually result in a profit, then you don't have a viable business idea and no investor would sink money into it.
The classic case of this happening is all the factories that closed due to competition in China and elsewhere. Those factories indeed had to hire Americans for their physical proximity, if nothing else, and at that price point they could not sustain themselves. Even having higher quality did not save most of them. Consumers didn't care enough about quality or patriotism to sustain those factories.
It is totally an economic problem: oversupply of labor driven by market dynamics. The solution that helps American workers is to slow down immigration by a lot. It has knock-on effects though, such as higher prices and potentially lower quality for a lot of things. It would also shift people around within the domestic economy.
Profit-seeking behavior lowers prices for everyone in the long run. If I were to summarize the problem I would say: Extreme exchange ratios and rapid/easy movement of resources internationally are causing threats to certain sectors of the workforce, including national security threats and impoverishment of skilled workers in wealthy nations (especially the US).