Your "guess" before your arguments is a pointless jab and ploy to win a point without having yet said anything.
If you think that accusing me of "being under the spell of market fundamentalism" is a succesful rhetorical strategy, then you neither understood my post nor are you worth arguing with.
My comment was made in the context of mentioned complex factors that you are ommitting.
Your 1 and 2 numbered responses are pure nonsense. Response 1 reveals to me who I am dealing with. This is going to go nowhere. Response 2 is ideological hand waving. 3 is true, but I included points that addressed it in my post.
There is zero political (effective) difference in the labor market between being underpaid and wanting more money, if the ask is for more money.
If they are truly underpaid, then they should ask for more money and get it. If they are not underpaid and ask for more money lest penalty x, then the market effect for employers is the same.
A further problem, as illustrated by your definitions of underpayment with which I disagree, is who is to decide what being underpaid means?
The answer to that question is that what constitutes underpayment will always be murky as far as the market is concerned and therefore, again, my point stands. Pay will never be enough, as a point of fact.
>No. I'd never talk about a fortune 500 CEO or a FAANG engineer as being underpaid.
"Never". That's a perfect example of the self-centered view of much of labor advocacy. Not only do they publicly only take the other side of the market into account when it opportunistically suits them (ie: when bucking for asset ownership or when owning assets themsevles), they have trouble comprehending how their own principles might scale to different skill levels in the labor pool.
> I see what you're saying, but the real world is a lot more morally complicated that the single-axis world where your comment here makes sense.
I disagree with your single-axis categorization. I disagree with the implication that this is largely a moral argument.
I disagree with the assumption you would be able to make moral assertions that had any impact on the economic forces that determine pay and job availability, given the mentioned constraint (mass immigration). My original point is that the labor market will not be able to have it all. It has to choose, and clearly it has made its choice.
But in its defense, the pro-labor market was co-opted generations ago by Business. That dissonance that you percieve and interpret as "moral complexity" is exactly their influence.
If you think that accusing me of "being under the spell of market fundamentalism" is a succesful rhetorical strategy, then you neither understood my post nor are you worth arguing with.
My comment was made in the context of mentioned complex factors that you are ommitting.
Your 1 and 2 numbered responses are pure nonsense. Response 1 reveals to me who I am dealing with. This is going to go nowhere. Response 2 is ideological hand waving. 3 is true, but I included points that addressed it in my post.
There is zero political (effective) difference in the labor market between being underpaid and wanting more money, if the ask is for more money.
If they are truly underpaid, then they should ask for more money and get it. If they are not underpaid and ask for more money lest penalty x, then the market effect for employers is the same.
A further problem, as illustrated by your definitions of underpayment with which I disagree, is who is to decide what being underpaid means?
The answer to that question is that what constitutes underpayment will always be murky as far as the market is concerned and therefore, again, my point stands. Pay will never be enough, as a point of fact.
>No. I'd never talk about a fortune 500 CEO or a FAANG engineer as being underpaid.
"Never". That's a perfect example of the self-centered view of much of labor advocacy. Not only do they publicly only take the other side of the market into account when it opportunistically suits them (ie: when bucking for asset ownership or when owning assets themsevles), they have trouble comprehending how their own principles might scale to different skill levels in the labor pool.
> I see what you're saying, but the real world is a lot more morally complicated that the single-axis world where your comment here makes sense.
I disagree with your single-axis categorization. I disagree with the implication that this is largely a moral argument.
I disagree with the assumption you would be able to make moral assertions that had any impact on the economic forces that determine pay and job availability, given the mentioned constraint (mass immigration). My original point is that the labor market will not be able to have it all. It has to choose, and clearly it has made its choice.
But in its defense, the pro-labor market was co-opted generations ago by Business. That dissonance that you percieve and interpret as "moral complexity" is exactly their influence.