5 ms·

This is not how it works. The bigger the labour pool, the worse deal you are going to get. You're now competing against the guy in Nowhere Town, this guy can d

This is not how it works. The bigger the labour pool, the worse deal you are going to get. You're now competing against the guy in Nowhere Town, this guy can do your job and he's willing to do it for less because he's never experienced an expensive reale estate market. I run a small consulting practice. We are highly skilled and very experienced. We can often charge much less than our competitors because we don't have the overheads our competitors do. A 1 million dollar deal for my practice is worth a lot more than a 1 million dollar deal for Accenture. We can go down to 700,000 and still have over 90% profitability, Accenture will walk away at that price point because it's not worth their time.

BurningFrog 6y ago
> The bigger the labour pool, the worse deal you are going to get. If this was true, big cities would pay the lowest wages, while remote rural places would be where to go for really high pay. I think the main thing missing from your model is that the employer pool is also growing.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  This is actually the case in certain industries and areas. You can, for example, make more money as a medical professional in a rural area than you can in cities, for example. The main thing missing here is that this is the tech industry where there was previously no demand in rural places, which makes the low supply in rural places irrelevant. Before the aggressive lockdowns across the country, tech companies didn't care about rural areas because the increased labor pool wasn't worth the compounding gains you get from a concentration of talent, face-to-face communication, and advanced urban infrastructure. Now they literally can't have that, they will give you a worse deal because they have access to a larger labor pool. It's kind of absurd to suggest that increasing the labor pool alone will lead to higher wages. It's strictly worse for city dwellers who already benefited from an increasing employer pool, which is now offset by an increasing labor pool.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> The bigger the labour pool, the worse deal you are going to get. If this was true, big cities would pay the lowest wages, while remote rural places would be where to go for really high pay. I think the main thing missing from your model is that the employer pool is also growing.

themacguffinman 6y ago
This is actually the case in certain industries and areas. You can, for example, make more money as a medical professional in a rural area than you can in cities, for example. The main thing missing here is that this is the tech industry where there was previously no demand in rural places, which makes the low supply in rural places irrelevant. Before the aggressive lockdowns across the country, tech companies didn't care about rural areas because the increased labor pool wasn't worth the compounding gains you get from a concentration of talent, face-to-face communication, and advanced urban infrastructure. Now they literally can't have that, they will give you a worse deal because they have access to a larger labor pool. It's kind of absurd to suggest that increasing the labor pool alone will lead to higher wages. It's strictly worse for city dwellers who already benefited from an increasing employer pool, which is now offset by an increasing labor pool.