An op-ed at the New York Times from Alan Krueger and Eric Posner lists some of the ways in which companies keep wages low:
Even after eight years of economic recovery and steady private-sector job growth, wages for most Americans have hardly budged. It is tempting to think that wage stagnation is intractable, a result of long-term trends, like automation and globalization, that government is powerless to do anything about.
In fact, a growing body of evidence pins much of the blame on a specific culprit, one for which proven legal weapons already exist. But they are not being used.
The culprit is “monopsony power.†This term is used by economists to refer to the ability of an employer to suppress wages below the efficient or perfectly competitive level of compensation. In the more familiar case of monopoly, a large seller — like a cable company — is able to demand high prices for poor service because consumers have no other choice. It turns out that many corporations possess bargaining power over their workers, not just over their consumers. Their workers accept low wages and substandard working conditions because few alternative job opportunities exist for them or because switching jobs is costly. In other words, in the labor market, effectively a small number of employers are competing for their labor.
The other culprit at which they point the finger is outsourcing. I wish they had been a bit more precise about what they meant by that. Every company outsources. I don’t know of any company that operates its own phone system, generates it own electricity, builds its own office buildings, manufactures its own vehicles, and develops its own software. Even Microsoft uses non-Microsoft software. Companies outsource those functions because it’s more efficient to do so. That’s basic Adam Smith.
Outsourcing and particularly offshore outsourcing core business functions is a different issue. To those I would add importing workers from overseas to replace domestic workers, something that’s expressly prohibited but is done all of the time. There’s also employing illegal immigrants.
The authors’ implied solutions are bans on “no-poaching” employment contracts and increasing union power:
Unions used to offset employer monopsony power, but unions now represent only 7 percent of private sector workers, down from a peak of 35 percent in the 1950s.
which is self-refuting. Unions function most effectively when there’s a tight labor market.
My own view is that size itself is the enemy. Big companies exert monopsony power. It’s unlikely that your local bookstore wields the power that Amazon does.
The first step is having the guts to enforce laws already on the books. When monopolies use their power to push their way into other businesses, that’s an illegal violation of monopoly power. Such companies should be broken up.
To your point in the next to last paragraph, monopsony is a large company phenomenon. Our companies are distinctly seeing and responding to wage pressure. Companies being evaluated are reporting same.
These are $50-$500mm revenue enterprises.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/586457604/whats-it-like-to-be-rich-ask-the-people-who-manage-billionaires-money
Guarneri:
One of the problems we face is the rapid rate of consolidation. Big businesses are acquiring smaller competitors at an alarming rate. I think that’s not just one of the factors behind wage stagnation but the slow rate of new business formation.
You know what I do, Dave. You know, I presume, our business model. You are preaching to the choir. Every time I rail against Buffet this is the issue. He’s a first class monopolist, and a first class snake. I would only point out that laying out the slow rate of business formation as being due to monopoly seeking has validity, but is a second order effect in my opinion. Risk – political, tax, regulatory is a first order effect. Oh, and I think new business formation and expansion are both affected.
Don’t forget the “Walmart Effect”. Walmart’s not alone either. Employers may want to reduce wages and salaries for their bottom line, but if they want large sales agreements with Walmart, it’s imperative because Walmart sets the wholesale price of the item. If 50% of your output goes through Walmart, you can’t just tell them no. You would have to downsize your business dramatically.
In the dairy business, we’ve had to close entire bottling plants, laying off hundreds, because of the loss of just one sales contract, involving dozens of Walmart stores.
With respect to working class wages, which have been falling in real terms for 40 years or so, there are several causes: the entry of largely unskilled women into the work force in large numbers; high levels of legal and illegal immigration; automation; free trade; and off-shoring of manufacturing.
The H1B visas directly attack middle income skilled workers but this is a smaller problem, although middle class salaries have stagnated over the same period.
You can argue over which is most important but each of them has either greatly increased the labor supply or greatly decreased the number of jobs. Both changes force down wages. The loss of industrial jobs has been especially pernicious because they are high-paying jobs, which, of course, is why they were cut.
Manufacturing is also a high tax generating activity, and its loss has reduced the ability of the government to raise taxes to support various activities, some frivolous, some essential. Hence, a $1T budget deficit and $20T plus of accumulated debt. The budget deficit is far larger than the defense budget, and the annual interest payment on the accumulated debt will be the item in the federal budget.
All the policies that crushed the working class are heartily supported by the Ruling Class, which unsurprisingly has been able to capture all of the economic growth of the last 40 years plus the income they clawed away from the working class.
And people wonder why Trump beat all the Ruling Class minions, including the whore Clinton. If the Ruling Class doesn’t kill him (probable), he will win 2020 in a landslide.
Of course, what we really need is our very own Pinochet.