[cbdfghh]

>It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline.

Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)?

As an example, let's take a speech-writer for a presidential candidate.

Company X (let's say it has 100 billion in the bank) wants a website, so it looks for an SEO firm, but it's cheap and not interested in investing in the website.

X doesn't get skilled SEO consultants.

X now has three choices - get minimum quality workers, drop the website project or pay more for better workers.

Obviously, workers would prefer if X choses 3, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense to do so (or the company doesn't _think_ it needs to do so, and goes out of business):

What if a company has a small audience comprised of people who don't find things online.

Let's say the company runs a program only senators would use. That's a hundred person market which practically requires personal connection to their staff to make a deal.

Hiring someone for $250,000 website is just not worth it.

Practically, in a capitalist environment, workers are "contractors" selling themselves.

The same way I would not pay for a big-iron computer when all I need is a laptop, companies don't want to pay $200,000 when they can find someone for less.

[whybroke]

>Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)?

Just imagine the businesses that suddenly become profitable if employers could provide nothing beyond room and board and employees weren't allowed to quit!

[cbdfghh]

>employees weren't allowed to quit

In the US you can quit and look for another job, the same way how MS can exit the OS market.

The same way MS doesn't leave the OS market (too lucrative), most people don't walk off on their jobs.