What do workers compete for?

At first glance, the return to labour seems straightforward:  a skilled
person who wants to work can join himself to the required land and
capital,
work hard to create value, and demand a significant ****tion of that value
in
return.  In fact, after deducting reasonable returns to capital and land,
it
would seem that he can claim the rest.  If that's true, then a worker's
natural compensation is determined almost completely by his own
productivity -- it doesn't matter who else is in the workforce and what
they're willing to work for.

This notion is, of course, in conflict with the commonly held (especially
among the "outsourcing bad!" crowd) belief that wages are held down by
competition among workers.

But if wages are held down by competition among workers, then what,
exactly,
do they compete for?  Capital isn't scarce, and land isn't scarce, so how
can jobs be scarce?  Why would a company decline to hire someone who can
produce in excess of his compensation and the other costs associated with
his employment?  It seems self-evident that no company would, so what is
the
real cause for compensation among workers?

Perhaps there are subtler factors of production that are actually scarce,
like entrepreneur****p and inventiveness, and also required to produce
value
in Today's complex markets.  Are workers competing, in effect, for
relation****ps with people who will take the risks, decide what to produce,
and tell them what to do?  Someone to give their labour purpose?  I think
it
might be so.

These thoughts seem to suggest that those C-level executives are worth
what
they get paid.  They seem to suggest that what the economy really needs is
more inventors, risk takers, and entrepreneurs.  They seem to sup****t
supply-side objectives, like concentrating wealth in the hands of those
most
likely to risk it.

--
Matt