[quote=barnaby33]Because remote work generally increases supply of labor. [/quote]
Nope, don’t agree. Remote work can increase the size of the labor pool available to a company, but that does not change the overall number of workers in the global work force. Overall the total number of people in the global workforce does not decrease simply due to remote work. If you want to look at it only from the point of view of US companies, then that’s a different thing. This discussion sprung up because of this comment:
[quote=deadzone]If all jobs could be done remotely, then clearly wages would go way down in the long run. [/quote]
If all jobs could be done remotely then the only work force would be the global workforce. There would be no increase (or decrease) in the supply of labor. (And thus you wouldn’t expect a change in the cost of labor)
You could argue, (and I would agree) that with the globalization that started in the 60’s the size of the workforce available to US companies grew significantly over the next few decades as they moved manufacturing and other operations overseas. But at this point in time, I think that expansion has pretty much run its course.
On a more local scale, as more companies adjust to remote work, companies in areas that have very high wages (silicon valley for example) may find the supply of people they are willing to consider will increase thus allowing them to decrease wages. But conversely in areas that have lower wages (think Raleigh NC) the number of available workers will decrease because some of the workers in that area will now be working for Silicon Valley companies and companies in Raleigh will need to increase wages to compete. All in all it should balance itself out, not cause a universal drop in wages.
