> If others want to compete they should offer something as compelling
Perhaps they cannot? Monopolies can apply to the purchase of labour, too. Indeed, the lack of viable competition, would be circumstantial evidence, to support the argument that there is a monopoly. Monopolies will sometimes overpay for labour in the same way they will undercharge for products - it can squeeze competitors out.
I've known plenty of people who left the big West Coast tech employers for elsewhere--possibly/probably for less money. Lots of reasons not to want to work for Google or Amazon.
Yes, and plenty of people quit the mines in company towns, and went to work in the big city. Considerable practical buyer or worker choice may exist, in an emerging monopolistic situation. Monopoly concerns aren't always the evil villain literally destroying all competitors, a single really large company can just be so big it distorts the market everywhere it turns. For an example on the consumer side, think Microsoft in the 1990s and early 2000s. In hindsight, obviously some monopoly concerns, even though there was niche and viable competition, in every sector they competed in.
Microsoft clearly had monopoly issues. I'm not sure they were from an employee perspective though. I don't remember Microsoft being viewed as a uniquely attractive employer in that period.
It's not a closed system with a fixed number of employees. They overpay for labor, which encourages more engineers to go into the field, which increases supply. Never underestimate the elasticity of supply.
Sorry but you're not going to convince me that high wages are a bad thing.
>Sorry but you're not going to convince me that high wages are a bad thing.
that's like saying all movies on demand for one subscription is a bad thing. It isn't... until it creeps into being a bad thing.
The high wages were the attractive bailey no one can argue with and we're seeing the motte rear its ugly head in a time where they are nigh impossible to compete with. I don't think "encouraging more engineers" is a good mechanism to encourage a monopoly.
Perhaps they cannot? Monopolies can apply to the purchase of labour, too. Indeed, the lack of viable competition, would be circumstantial evidence, to support the argument that there is a monopoly. Monopolies will sometimes overpay for labour in the same way they will undercharge for products - it can squeeze competitors out.