So wage fixing and overexpensive housing is the fault of the worker now? In Silicon Valley people in their thirties are living with roommates, that's not the individual's fault, it's deliberate policy.

>So wage fixing and overexpensive housing is the fault of the worker now?

I didn't write that.

When companies are cheaping out on labor and competing with other companies doing the same it is artificially lowering prices at the expense of the workers. If they all had to pay them more then prices would at worst go up around the board.

Therefore any price that people are unwilling to pay will not be because the competition offers a lower price, but because they are unwilling to purchase the product at all at that price. If that happens and it causes some businesses to be unviable because no one will pay the price required, then maybe we don't need those businesses.

> When companies are cheaping out on labor and competing with other companies doing the same it is artificially lowering prices at the expense of the workers.

If companies can't afford higher wages because it would make their products so expensive that they couldn't find enough customers for them, then you can hardly call that "artificial".

Corporations are unwilling to let non-executive wages become a larger percentage of their costs. They are perfectly willing to spend on other things. It is rather remarkable that the consumer market works at all, yet it is almost overheating, the key to that is loans, lots of loans, many connected to equity in an intentional housing bubble.

>Corporations are unwilling to let non-executive wages become a larger percentage of their costs.

Because they are competing with other companies.

>They are perfectly willing to spend on other things.

No companies generally try to lower costs anywhere it makes sense, in order to compete with other companies that will also do so to compete.

If companies could simply pay magic wages, out of the tens of thousands in the US, don't you think one would buck the trend and suddenly pay awesome wages and attract the best talent and win all the markets?

Either all 10,000 companies are in cahoots, or there are market forces causing a lot of the wages to be similar. Which is more likely? That Apple and Walmart and Rural King are agreeing on wages? Or that each competes against similar companies for workers and sales?

> That Apple and Walmart and Rural King are agreeing on wages?

I guess you know more about Apple's more competent co-conspirators than I do:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7449737

But there's no need to do anything technically illegal companies discuss how to screw employees and customers as industry groups all the time. They reach agreements not to do various things and to co-ordinate spending on political lobbying. They will for example try to share your salary data using an intermediary to avoid one of them giving you a larger raise. That helps both companies that might lose you and companies that are trying to hire you for bellow what free market wages would settle on if we all had the same information.

Oh, you mean that thing I addressed in the very next paragraph?

I'm saying I don't think we've reached that point yet. In other words, I think prices are often as low as they are not because people won't pay more, but because companies have exploited the labor market to lower prices creating a race to the bottom.

>I think prices are often as low as they are not because people won't pay more

There are very few products where a price increase won't result in less sales. Economists even have a term for it: elasticity. And they also estimate it across a massive range of goods, finding the opposite of what you think.

Look at how much trouble a inflation is causing people to see quite clearly that small price increases on goods causes significant problems for consumers.

>creating a race to the bottom

So far this "race to the bottom" has resulted in just about the richest, best paid people on the planet. Even our poverty line is about the top 15% of global income, and that's pre-tax transfer. Post-tax transfer poverty line people make significantly more.

So I don't think there's really much evidence of your claimed "race to the bottom," unless we're spectacularly bad at racing.

>If people want more pay than can be made back by selling the products

You seriously think this is what's happening? People that are demanding higher wages are not getting them because it's eating too much into margin to make products viable?

If that's the case I'd argue those products shouldn't exist, but from where I'm sitting it looks like business as usual... the people in charge of pay ultimately don't want to share their profits.

>They are perfectly willing to spend on other things.

So a product shouldn't exist because you don't get the wage you feel entitled to when making it?

Apparently a lot of others are willing to work making, selling, and buying products you think should not exist. I prefer the market solution.

Anyone can start a company, and pay workers awesome magical wages. Does this not happen because every single company owner is evil, or is it because there are real constraints to this dream of entitled wages, divorced from market clearing rates? Go make that company and make your ideal world reality.

You don't think everyone is entitled to a living wage?

No one is entitled to anything beyond their Constitutional rights. At the bottom of the labor market, some workers' labor is simply worth less than a living wage. If we fix minimum wages too high then those workers won't be hired at all and will never get an opportunity to gain experience.