6 Comments

1. Roderick
   Posted June 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

   

   Matt Zwolinski has replied here, and I’ve responded in the comments.

2. Ashton
   Posted June 10, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

   

   You write,

   But what if the company can’t afford to offer higher wages and better conditions? Sometimes that’s the case; but with most of these international corporations there’s a sizable gap between what the employers are offering now and what they can afford to offer while still remaining profitable – otherwise strikes, particularly strikes on the Immokalee model (see here [7] and here [8], and broader reflections here [9]), would never succeed…

   It is not clear to me how you know that the gap is sizable between employee benefits, wages, etc., and the profits earned by various corporations.

   And simply because the strikes “work” or end in an agreement, does not necessarily mean it’s because the corporations have such a large profit margin to work with; it could simply be that whatever is compensated for the workers is passed on to the consumers through prices and the rest.

   • Roderick
     Posted June 10, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

     

     It is not clear to me how you know that the gap is sizable between employee benefits, wages, etc., and the profits earned by various corporations.

     Because companies that were already fairly successful paying higher wages domestically in the u.s. have subsequently outsourced to low-wage regions.

     And simply because the strikes “work” or end in an agreement, does not necessarily mean it’s because the corporations have such a large profit margin to work with; it could simply be that whatever is compensated for the workers is passed on to the consumers through prices and the rest.

     If they could so easily afford to raise prices for the consumer, why wouldn’t they do it already? Why wait for a strike?

3. Ashton
   Posted June 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

   

   Because companies that were already fairly successful paying higher wages domestically in the u.s. have subsequently outsourced to low-wage regions.

   The fairly successful corporations engaging in business practices in America seems to be itself a subjective determination, and to find cheaper labor hence increasing profit also seems to be the game. So, if the practice of maximizing profit (perhaps at the expense of many jobs–I’ve read somewhere, I believe, that the outsourcing of American jobs only accounts for about 2% of its workforce) is somehow in your view the issue, it still doesn’t answer how you know that the gap is sizable. I suppose I’m looking for numbers to compare in this context, and then maybe we could go onto the virtues or vices of that gap should it exist (it most likely does). Also, which corporations and for what reasons do they express as toward the move of outsourcing their jobs, if they express such things? I suspect they would argue “to maximize profit” or something along those lines.

   If they could so easily afford to raise prices for the consumer, why wouldn’t they do it already? Why wait for a strike?

   Of course I was only stipulating, but in response perhaps they can’t easily afford the increase; price increases would entail less competitiveness in the market for a particular product, therefore the lesser incentive for compensating the employees through price increases. I mean, that seems plausible, doesn’t it?

4. David Gordon
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

   

   Because companies that were already fairly successful paying higher wages domestically in the u.s. have subsequently outsourced to low-wage regions

   Doesn’t this assume that the revenue to companies in the low-wage regions is similar to the revenue in the domestic high range area? If the revenue in the low-wage regions is also lower, your argument doesn’t establish that there is room for bargaining to raise wages.

   • Roderick
     Posted June 15, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

     

     But isn’t the market typically the same?