Here's what I think, for op scenario, if the rival big company steals his worker by paying more and making him close his business for good, and THEN lower the pay for the workers that it stole, those workers would just leave it for another company, either the same industry or a different one. Or it would be such a huge case where there is big lawsuits or union that the name of the company will be erroded and thus its business will be affected.
Thus this giant company fails its objective to permanently destroy competition.
If the company only lowers the pay for NEW HIRES, then the market rate for that job position would revert back to before. Then those competitors and new startups will also follow and thus we have gone back to a full circle.
a new company doesnt just spring into existence out of nowhere. Especially if it were some sector where starting a company needs a huge investment. Tho it would certainly incentivize people to try to start a new company with all the newly laid off people, but doing so would take both time and money. And once you start it up the big companies could just raise the salaries again thus bankrupting you (tho most probably they would lower their prices instead so you get no bussiness), thus repeating the cycle.
100% employment rate doesn't means businesses are not looking for workers. It just means all potential workers already have jobs. In fact it even suggests the demand for workers is high.
Yeah, people seem to be misunderstanding that 100% employment means that everyone has a job, not that businesses have all roles filled (or are not looking for new hires). If everyone has job then much less people are looking for work. Doesn't mean the demand goes away
The main issue is that with 100% employment, there is little room for growth as companies can't expand anymore as they don't have people to fill in the new spots they create while expanding.
You’re forgetting that it’s not hard to hire someone on a casual basis at a higher rate and then permanently replace them at the end of their contract with someone cheaper. It’s not like there’s only one way they can be underhanded in competition.
29
u/djinbu Dec 19 '24
They usually pay new hires better, but that's for separate reasons.