[jnicholasp]

I'm not making an argument here, since I don't know the answer to my question, but is it possible that a higher proportion of coal and manufacturing jobs were traditionally living wage, support-a-family type jobs, as compared to retail jobs? And if so, wouldn't it be reasonable to focus attention on the losses in the two categories somewhat differently?

[ChrisLTD]

That's an interesting point, but it leads me to a different conclusion. Given the higher numbers of people employed in retail, shouldn't we focus more attention on the fact that those jobs can't support a family?

[jnicholasp]

> those jobs can't support a family

Should they be able to? Absent some kind of deliberate regulatory or collective-bargaining action to prop up the price of labor in a given category, I assume the prevailing wages tend to reflect an implicit agreement between employers and potential employees on what that labor is worth. What is the argument for propping up the price of labor beyond what people are willing to do it for?

Or, put another way, what is the argument for why jobs should be seen as existing for the sake of giving workers enough money to live on, rather than as existing because some people want certain things done and are willing to pay a certain amount to have them done? In the second case, the value of having certain things done is not infinitely variable: some actions will create x value in the world, and can only be worth doing if they cost <x to do. Requiring that those actions be paid >=x will simply mean that those things will cease to exist. Is it a better world if we regulate out of existence those jobs whose performance is worth less than a family-supporting wage?

[ChrisLTD]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. The argument for propping up the price of labor is that 1) we don't want working people to starve on the streets, 2) politically we've decided it's not the government's job to keep able-bodied workers off the streets. #1 is clearly right, while #2 should be up for debate.

As for wage floors killing jobs, the effect would depend on the height of the floor. Modest increases in the minimum wage have had practically no effect on employment, but I'm sure massive hikes would cause problems.

[jnicholasp]

Thank you, too.

I'm not convinced that propping up the price of labor directly follows from your point 1), which I do of course agree with. It seems better to me that the government do what it can to encourage the creation of jobs that are valuable enough to support living wages, rather than mandate that jobs which are not valuable enough to do so cannot legally exist. The former, I think, encourages creativity and the development of new possibilities, while the latter restricts freedom and limits the diversity of the economic ecology.

[wcummings]

Harder to unionize service and retail workers unfortunately.

[wcummings]

It's because it's hard to unionize retail. Manufacturing is nearly synonymous with union jobs in this context.

[jnicholasp]

Why is it hard to unionize retail?

My (naive) guess would be that retail is a less-skilled job, so attempts by labor-groups to make themselves a controlled source of labor supply are easily circumvented by the readiness with which those jobs can be filled by nearly anyone. Whereas manufacturing jobs that involve some degree of skill are more able to corner the market on their own labor, and thus better able to negotiate from a position of power.

[wcummings]

A few notions, in order from what I think is most likely/important to least:

1. Retail involves large numbers of part-time workers, making the workforce harder to organize.

2. An idle factory is incredibly costly to the owners. Factory workers have more leverage.

3. Employer hostility/union breaking efforts, you need only spend a few minutes on google to find some nasty stories about wally world or your least favorite retail chain.

4. Lack of identity: if the last few years have taught us anything, it should be that people in manufacturing clearly have integrated their jobs into their identity. You can see programmers et al doing the same thing right here on HN every day. I doubt most people in retail consider "working in retail" to be an important part of who they are in the same way factory workers or programmers might.

5. Men ("breadwinners") have historically worked in manufacturing and women have historically worked in retail, lack of focus on retail historically by organizers

A more interesting question that "Why is it hard to unionize retail?" is "Why is it hard to unionize programmers?" I don't have as many good answers for that one. #3 is the only one which applies to programmers.