'free market levels' -- measured by what? You have one of the most open labor markets around and yet it keeps being labeled as 'unfair'. What are we comparing to as real 'free market'?
What makes this conversation difficult right now is that we're in the middle of a shock to labor markets. We're not in a "open labor market", the longterm trend since the 1970s/1980s is labor market concentration. We see this in every part of the economy, but low wage/service jobs are about 4x more concentrated than they were in the past. The 'fair market' wage is estimated the same way other prices are, by looking at real aggregate supply and demand (in this case, in labor markets).
Don't use some market segments like retail to generalize the entire economy. You can't have it both ways... if there really is a limit of employers, workers are the ones that control their fate. Workers are the ones that will define their mobility and their tolerance for wages - not employers.
If there are a sufficiently large number of employers competing for labor, then it's possible for employees to change firms at a higher wage. If wages are uniform throughout the sector that employs a worker - in the case of our economy, because markets are non-competitive and employers set wages - then workers are unable to negotiate higher wages.
Truth is wages have increased nearly 50% in hourly low-skill labor in this past year... more so than any other segment, with more opportunities than ever. Yet people say 'there is no work available' - It's non-sense. People are trying to get the work THEY WANT and then whine it's not available to them. What are they doing about it?
Leaving aside whether this statistic is true or not, all this is saying is that workers - right now - are better able to negotiate their wages. We have about 40-50 years of data showing that wages have not changed or declined in real terms. Any gains - at present - are short term in nature.
My job didn't pay enough.. so I worked two jobs. Housing was too expensive, so I shared a room with 3 other people. The job I wanted wasn't local and required an up to 2hr commute.. so I commuted in one of the worst traffic spots in the country. Eventually I got tired of that, so I moved. But again too expensive so I moved really far out to where I could afford it. I wanted more things then my pay provided - so I did the sacrifices to lead the pack and succeed in my field. When it comes to review time I tell my boss how I brought success to their business and drove things like revenue or customer success... I don't tell them "well I got another kid, can I have a raise?"
One of the saddest things that comes up in these conversations is exactly how many people were underpaid for their labor and suffered for it. You shouldn't have had to work two jobs or shared a room with three other people to survive. You should have been paid an adequate amount.
I emphasize with people struggling to get by - but show me what you are doing about it.
Well, right now, workers are doing exactly what you're saying they should do. They're using their market power to negotiate higher wages.
My wife's company right now will pay nearly $20/hr just to follow a script to teach kids how to swim by standing in a 3ft pool... no experience needed. They can't get people to apply.. and those that do.. don't even show up consistently. They can't even keep people hired for 60 days because people JUST DON'T SHOW UP. No.. I've seen enough, don't cry to me about 'unfair markets' or 'no work available'. It's plentiful - people aren't pulling their own weight.
I'm confused - isn't that what you're saying people should do? Negotiate higher wages. If people don't see that kind of work as worth $20/hour, in a free market, they aren't obligated to take that job. In your words - no one is forcing them to do that.
