Question about perfectly competitive labor market

  • Thread starter Thread starter gangsta316
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of wage equality in a perfectly competitive labor market, specifically addressing how total net advantages across different occupations can be equalized despite variations in working conditions and job desirability. Participants explore theoretical implications, compensating differentials, and the assumptions underlying labor mobility and wage determination.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that in a perfectly competitive labor market, all workers receive the same wage, questioning how net advantages can be equalized when jobs with poor conditions pay the same as those with good conditions.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of compensating differentials, suggesting that jobs with worse working conditions must offer higher monetary wages to attract workers, indicating that the general wage rate equilibrates but not necessarily the monetary wage rate.
  • A different viewpoint challenges the assumption of equal motivation among workers to leave undesirable jobs, suggesting that this notion is flawed and likening it to a fallacy of social equality.
  • One participant questions whether the concept of "equal wage" could be interpreted as free access to all goods and services in the market, introducing a different perspective on wage and compensation.
  • Another contribution discusses the relationship between wages and job desirability, referencing a historical economic essay that examines how opportunity costs and job agreeableness affect wage levels.
  • A cautionary note is raised regarding competitive general equilibrium models, indicating that wage rates for different types of labor may not need to be equal, similar to how prices for different goods can vary while still allowing markets to clear.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions of wage equality and the implications of compensating differentials. There is no consensus on how net advantages can be equalized in practice, and the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in assumptions about worker motivation and the nature of job desirability, as well as the complexities involved in defining wages and net advantages across occupations. The discussion also touches on the theoretical frameworks that may not fully capture the nuances of real-world labor markets.

gangsta316
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Explain why, in a perfectly competitive labor market, the total net advantages of all occupations would be equalized. (10)

In a perfectly competitive labor market, all workers have the same wage. So if they have the same wage how can net advantages be equalized? Jobs which have bad working conditions will pay the same as jobs with good working conditions. My reasoning is this: if say, lawyers earn more than builders, then builders will change their occupation to lawyer (perfect labor mobility) and the extra supply of lawyers will lower the wage rate and the lower supply of builders will increase the wage rate. This happens with all occupations and eventually all workers have the same wage rate. And isn't the whole principle of perfect competition that everyone is a price taker?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are forgetting about compensating differentials, monetary wage is only one form of the real wage workers receive. Working conditions also factor into the wage rate, so jobs with bad working conditions will have to pay a higher monetary wage to compensate for the bad working conditions. The general wage rate will equilibrate, but not the monetary wage rate.
 
gangsta316 said:
Explain why, in a perfectly competitive labor market, the total net advantages of all occupations would be equalized. (10)

In a perfectly competitive labor market, all workers have the same wage. So if they have the same wage how can net advantages be equalized? Jobs which have bad working conditions will pay the same as jobs with good working conditions. My reasoning is this: if say, lawyers earn more than builders, then builders will change their occupation to lawyer (perfect labor mobility) and the extra supply of lawyers will lower the wage rate and the lower supply of builders will increase the wage rate. This happens with all occupations and eventually all workers have the same wage rate. And isn't the whole principle of perfect competition that everyone is a price taker?

Thanks for any help.

what you are asking is the crutch of social equality grues ..
not many will put forth the effort to get out of a bad or distasefull job
you make an assumption of all equility modvated to work for the common good
which will never happen
this is the fallacy of communism and the socicalish thought process involved..
ie: for get it kid it jest don't work
to many that want some thing for nothing..
so jest forget Walden's pond..
 
what if that "equal wage" is simply free acces to anything in the market?
 
334dave said:
what you are asking is the crutch of social equality grues ..
not many will put forth the effort to get out of a bad or distasefull job
you make an assumption of all equility modvated to work for the common good
which will never happen
this is the fallacy of communism and the socicalish thought process involved..
ie: for get it kid it jest don't work
to many that want some thing for nothing..
so jest forget Walden's pond..
Is this rap? "Man," it's beautiful...

"Wage" includes all "goods and services" that a worker receives to offset the discomfort of working. Although, this point is not free of a (somewhat semantic) debate:

[PLAIN said:
http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/essays/margrev/oppcost.htm#debate][In[/PLAIN] his essay "The Common Sense of Political Economy" published in Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 42, issue 5, pages 660 to 673] Frank Knight (1934) poses the question whether opportunity cost captures the idea that wages in agreeable jobs are lower than wages in irksome jobs? The [Austrian School's] resolution here is even simpler if we consider the jobs and their irksomeness/agreeableness to be joint goods: the higher wages paid to the laborer in the "irksome job" does not compensate for greater disutility of that job, but rather for the displaced "agreeable job".

That is, you need to pay me a higher wage as a construction worker if the "next best" job available is being a lawyer (and I have already passed all the Bar exams), than if it were being a cashier in the grocery store (and they had already said they'd hire me).

As a cautionary note, in a competitive general equilibrium model with multiple types of labor (e.g., menial vs. mental) that cannot be costlessly converted into one another, wage rates for the different types of labor need not be equal; just as the price of wheat does not need to equal the price of automobiles for the markets to clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
9K
Replies
31
Views
10K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
14K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
  • · Replies 156 ·
6
Replies
156
Views
40K