As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market.
I do not agree that market efficiency should have priority over all other considerations. It seems to me this idea simply reflects the views of those who derive a net benefit from markets, and are oblivious (by accident or choice) to the costs of market failure or impossibility of clearance.
Look, supply and demand only work under conditions of perfect competition, which include total knowledge of the market by all participants and no costs for entry or exit. Such conditions obviously do not obtain in many, perhaps most real world contexts. A slavish obedience to these laws is therefore a losing strategy, and indeed in the real world most people take a strategic approach.
People who take a strategic approach for themselves while insisting on the supremacy of supply and demand to others (who may or may not be aware of the dichotomy and subsequently credulous of the assertion) are engaged in an act of deception.
I do not agree that market efficiency should have priority over all other considerations. It seems to me this idea simply reflects the views of those who derive a net benefit from markets, and are oblivious (by accident or choice) to the costs of market failure or impossibility of clearance.
Look, supply and demand only work under conditions of perfect competition, which include total knowledge of the market by all participants and no costs for entry or exit. Such conditions obviously do not obtain in many, perhaps most real world contexts. A slavish obedience to these laws is therefore a losing strategy, and indeed in the real world most people take a strategic approach.
People who take a strategic approach for themselves while insisting on the supremacy of supply and demand to others (who may or may not be aware of the dichotomy and subsequently credulous of the assertion) are engaged in an act of deception.