Lumifer comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - Less Wrong

13 Post author: ChrisHallquist 27 November 2013 05:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (510)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: elharo 22 September 2015 10:17:08AM 0 points [-]

The relative value of a job matters more than the absolute here. When a worker can walk across the street and get the same $15 an hour at McDonalds they do today at Burger King, then Burger King and McDonalds need to compete for employees based on work conditions. Managers get away with abuse only when the salary exceeds the prevailing wage for the skill set, or jobs are hard to find.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 September 2015 02:26:23PM 5 points [-]

When a worker can walk across the street and get the same $15 an hour at McDonalds they do today at Burger King, then Burger King and McDonalds need to compete for employees based on work conditions.

Nope. When you force a price floor above the market clearing price (the price for labor, aka the minimum wage) you create a persistent glut of supply and a shortage of demand. Managers don't have to compete for workforce when there is a long line of people raring to get their $15/hour in front of both McDonalds and Burger King. Instead, managers spend a lot of time coming up with clever ways to to automate their business.

Comment author: gjm 23 September 2015 04:18:47PM 0 points [-]

If some prospective employees are better than others, then that long line of people will still contain better and worse candidates, and employers may compete to get the better ones.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 29 September 2015 12:21:15AM 1 point [-]

Yes, and in this context better means "willing to put up with abuse by bosses".

Comment author: gjm 29 September 2015 01:58:03AM 0 points [-]

It presumably means some combination of that, speed, diligence, etc. I wouldn't expect abuse-tolerance to be a large fraction of what most bosses want, though no doubt some bosses are awful enough to prefer less profitable but more abusable employees.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 29 September 2015 03:05:48AM 1 point [-]

Depends on the "abuse". Here it means practices that increase productivity at the expense of employee quality of life. For example, insisting that employees be willing to work odd hours on short notice.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 September 2015 04:30:28PM *  1 point [-]

Employers always compete for better employees, but they are, generally speaking, satisficers. The marginal benefit from having a high-IQ, very conscientious, giving-his-100%-to-the-job employee flipping burgers is not very high.