[cc439]

How many companies are located within such close geographic proximity to their competitors that employees can choose to work for the competition without moving to a completely separate place? Outside of natural resource extraction, this kind of thinking only applies to nascent eras of new and flourishing industries such as the late 19th century steel industry, early 20th century automobile industry, and current SV-centered tech industry. Eventually those industries will expand away from that overly competitive region in a fragmented manner, divorcing an employees choice in employment from affecting any change in the labor market for a given industry.

[Retra]

None of that is relevant to the employer-employee relationship. My employer's competition is not my competition. Even if there were no hiring competitors, they would still not be my competition. I would still want equitable bargaining power with my employer.

And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union.

[joejev]

> And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union.

Do you not believe that a CEO could have at least 20 times the impact on the value of a company than the average employee, and if so, should they not be compensated accordingly?

[Retra]

No, I do not believe in the divine right of kings.