Hacker News Reader

Comment by jterce | Hacker News Reader

- "Its utterly ridiculous" "They well deserve it."

Why?

You seem to be forgetting the basics of economics. It really doesn't matter what you think they "deserve" or how hard you or they think it is to deal with the general public.

What matters is how many people could/would be willing to do their jobs. And the answer is quite a few, whereas there are many fewer people who could manage a McDonalds.

Thus demand is low for flight attendants, and thus the price is low.

I'm all for people negotiating for as much as they can get, but I certainly don't think it's ridiculous that the market offers different prices for different services.

View on HN

You seem to think the market for jobs operates with something approaching market economics. If this were true then we should be running PSAs to encourage people to become investment bankers because the incredibly high salaries paid are indicating a severe shortage. Instead I see commercials encouraging people to become teachers - if there were really a shortage wouldn't salaries rise by market forces?

The truth is economists have long recognized that the job market is different than the market for most other products. For one thing wages are "sticky," they don't change every couple of days the way the price for gas or a loaf of bread does.

You're right. You're also slightly wrong.

Yes, labor is not exactly comparable in market terms to other products--more sticky prices, more difficulty in estimating value, etc.--but the principle and its consequences remain.

We DON'T HAVE to run PSAs to encourage people to become investment bankers precisely because there are high salaries. The salaries are the advertizement and they're incredibly effective.

As far as teachers, we don't have a shortage. We don't need more teachers, we need better teachers. How to attract those better teachers is unclear--a strictly higher salary would attract more of all caliber of teachers which would not help. I suppose commercials are thought to be one way and I think it's likely better compensation will have to be a part of it as well.

The labor market is different than a commodity market, but that doesn't mean economics don't apply. There are switching costs, people are not fungible, and labor skills represent a huge time/money investment.

But this misses the point. We want our economic system to be as fair as possible, and in most cases (and certainly in the case of flight attendants), the "fairest" solution and the one that pays what flight attendants "deserve" to make is the fair market wage.

If this is the case, then the "basics of economics" sucks. If Virgin really cares about customer service as much as Branson's letter purports, then they should have no problem paying people who do their jobs at a level far above industry standard appropriately.

Maybe I'm being naive but I'd much rather pay a flight attendant who constantly goes beyond the call of duty and does his/her job at an extremely high standard, say $50K rather than paying someone else 30K, just because they're willing to do the job for less money.

You get what you pay for, right.

And I'd happily pay a premium to an airline with this philosophy.

Aside from that, arguing that he is ignoring the basics of economics also sucks.... 'the basics of economics' are not an end in and of themselves.

(However something like the 'greater good' or 'the right thing to do', which is what the op seems to be arguing, actually can be construed as a reason).

If demand is low, no-one will miss them much when they strike. If they are missed, basic market economics dictates that they should get paid more. Further, there are two sides to the demand curve. There is supply - how many people are prepared to do the job, and there is demand - how much those who pay them, directly or indirectly, appreciate what they do. Now, clearly there is some variation in the demand - you perhaps have little demand for their services, whereas some commenters value them more highly. So I guess in the fullness of time, perhaps with the aid of a strike for clarity, we'll see who's in the majority.

Noone will miss them much when they strike? Regardless of how "large" the supply of cabin-crew is; a strike that cancels flights will still affect my hypothetical holiday, and I will miss them an awful lot. That's more because there's a latency in the training duration and short-term availability of staff, than because there's a labor shortage for aircrew. (My understanding is that cabin crew is an exceptionally competitive job with many more applicants than successful employees).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com