• maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Making tram driving more attractive by paying them more would draw employees away from other industries, who also need people to do the work.

    That’s how free markets work, though. If there is a labour shortage, places which are important should pay more, to attract people away from other places, who either also raise wages or make do with fewer people or shutter.

    This is just inflationary pressure hitting employers, like all of us. Except when it’s a person, you just have to tighten the belt, or make do with higher prices, but when it’s a company, it’s a societal problem where simply paying more cannot be the solution.

    • quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I agree with you. The only issue I have is that some “important” things have much less extra money to dedicate to raising wages than less important things. The amount of profit isn’t always in line with the importance of a thing I guess. But if it’s that important then I guess government subsidies would be able to fix that gap

      • RedFox@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You mean because it’s public transit and might need more subsidy to raise wages and thus probably becomes political?

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        government subsidies

        I don’t think it’s a subsidy if the government was paying bills in the first place. It’s just raising wages in the public sector, which is by the way the prime driver of raising wages in the private sector as well.