Re: What do workers compete for?

On Tue, 4 May 2004 23:12:58 -0400, "Matt Timmermans"
<mt0000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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?

Land and capital are both 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.

IOW, more labor.

>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.

Very much.  Labor also competes for labor.

>These thoughts seem to suggest that those C-level executives are worth
what
>they get paid.

Not necessarily.  Those who gain control of resources can also just
extract rents while contributing nothing.

>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.

Risk taking is not a virtue in itself.  It's only beneficial to the
extent that risk is inherent in productive investment.  What is really
needed is to get the wealth out of the hands of idle rent seekers and
into the hands of those who will use it more productively.

-- Roy L