> Saying it’s a power relationship is another way of saying the same thing that you are saying here.
The way you frame the power imbalance is framed suggests that there is always something coercive and manipulative going on. A market rate suggests that a the hourly or daily rate for labour has settled naturally around a particular point through market forces in that particular area. Developers are more in demand in London so the day rate offered reflects that (typically £100-200 more).
You seem to be conflating two concepts into one.
> The amount of power that employer and employee have is based in large part on supply/demand.
What do you mean by power? I don't want to sound rude but the way you are talking about it is akin to how people talk about the force in star wars.
> However, power includes a little bit more: an employer who has a better knowledge of the market may be able to extract lower pay from an employee who doesn’t know their market rate, and an employee who is exceptionally well suited for a given job has more power to negotiate a better rate.
What you are arguing there is being informed about the market means that you won't get ripped off. Generally though there will be an approximate wage for a particular type of work based on how valuable the employee is and whether they can be replaced or not.
There are job boards these days online for almost anything you can work out what you are going to get paid for a particular type of role.
> Of course, this can also be reframed as a supply/demand scenario taking into account imperfect information for a given scenario, but that’s largely my point. They aren’t equivalent concepts, but they are closely related.
Again don't want to sound rude. This all read likes double speak to me. If you want to talk about a coercive power imbalance then talk about that. If you want to talk about market rates talk about market rates. Simply call things what they are.