Which is what I said. That companies are competing with eachother to pay lower wages, driving the wage down for those least able to resist this process - less well educated workers. Meanwhile wealth is being concentrated at the top end.Fan of Science wrote:Wages are rising, for those with job skills. Raises are falling for the uneducated in the work-force, not the educated. That's been the case for a number of decades now.
I wpuld note that is it education that appears to be the issue, rather than job skills. Skilled blue collar workers with high job skills are also seeing falling wages. Entry level wages for elite white collar professions are still rising.
Fan of Science wrote:To demand that unskilled workers receive a rise in pay is nonsensical. You want to increase their pay, then advocate for positions that increase their job skills.
No matter how well educated a workforce is, there will always need to be someone who delivers your pizza, or cleans your streets. Constantly reducing their wages isn't sustainable. Where does it stop?
I'd also note that any company that put 50cents on each pizza, and gave the difference to their delivery people, would attract the bulk of the best people in that area. Their pizzas would be delivered fresher, hotter, faster. Why do you suppose that doesn't happen? Why do you suppose that these companies all adopt the same working conditions, even though they're supposedly in competion? As I said, it's easier for them to compete against the customer, by agreeing to serve pizza at a common (low) standard, and limiting competition only to certain well-identified areas, like price, or free sides.
I notice I didn't get an example of central government driving wealth inequality. Was that particular point perhaps not based on reality after all?