Comment by Retric
8 days ago
It doesn’t necessarily need to be beneficial for the company.
Game theoretically there’s an advantage as an employee of a successful company to artificially reduce the number of people who can be employed to raise your own relative value to the company. If Google can only select from left handed employees suddenly they need to pay higher wages and existing employees are facing less competition as new employees are selected from a smaller applicant pool and thus worse.
Probably not the actual answer, but it’s worth considering such indirect motivations.
That's called wrong-think.
If one were to do that, you would be imposing costs to the point where demand drops to 0, and supply in the near term would follow that to 0.
From there you have a short march to economic collapse.
Management and workers extracting more money from companies isn’t a new thing, that’s the point of unions for example which didn’t collapse the economy.
Various interests try to get other people to behave in specific ways, but what actually happens isn’t necessarily as clean as often described.
That may have been the point of union's initially, but the reason the economy didn't collapse when no production occurred is because this never actually happened and was never tested fully.
When it came close to being tested, a legal playbook was provided for crushing unions, negating their intended benefit. This playbook was provided by none other than President Regan, with the 1981 PATCO strike.
The government took the side of the companies because they required the services to continue, and so any strike that exceeds a certain point has this bulldozer held in reserve; allowing the companies involved to not negotiate in good faith. The playbook has been used multiple times since to crush union power.