The editorial writer was speaking about employment and wages.

There is something wrong with "the system," he said, for there are more workers than jobs: "there is never a surplus of jobs," and the unemployment rate is invariably greater than zero. Even those who have jobs, he added, are not likely to be paid what they are worth, for the market is "always a buyer's market," tilted in favor of the employer. Daddy Warbucks can decide by whim how many and whom to hire and on what terms, while the poor but honest worker can only accept whatever is offered. The unemployment rate is greater than zero. The way the measurement is made guarantees that. An officially unemployed person is one who declares himself to be part of the labor forcehe wants a job and purports to be looking for onebut does not have a job. But both the notion of "the labor force" and the notion of "unemployed" are based heavily on estimates, preferences and tactics of people. A person may falsely declare himself to be a job candidate to qualify for welfare aid. He may be interested in a job but price himself out of the market with an unrealistic assessment of either his productivity or of demand for his sort of services. He may be sensible but feel inadequately informed about market options and is currently searching for informationand the more generous is unemployment compensation, the longer he is inclined to search.

So there is always some unemploymentthank goodness. If everyone is always to be employed, a worker could not quit a job for any reason, including investment of time and foregone current income to seek a better job.

The problem of unemployment is not jobs being fewer than workers. On some terms, a job is always available in an open market. But compensation and the hours of labor required to earn it can be so unrewarding that a person is rational to decline the job offer and remain unemployed.

The more valuable the worker, the higher the bid for his services. The high wage offer reflects rational concern of employers for their well-being, not a delicate sense of altruism or fairness. If you are technologically efficient in performing services which the community values highly, and if relatively few other workers are so productive, you will prosper. It is competition among the employers that raises wages, for they must bid against each other for labor to supply demanded products and thereby earn rewards. And it is competition among fellow workers that holds wages down by providing alternatives to employers.

1. Why does the Economist insist that workers don't compete with employers, but that employers compete with other employers and workers compete with other workers?

2. Who do students in your class compete with?