Strongest idea I'm aware of is radical pay transparency. If everyone's full pay and benefits were public knowledge, negotiation would be essentially algorithmic. The information asymmetry currently benefits capital greatly, but if we can overcome the cultural blocks to pay transparency, I am confident almost everyone will be better off. It's late, so I won't find the sources for this, but there is ample evidence of the beneficial effects for labor negotiation. Consider the recent law where CEO bonuses would be public. After that, CEO pay actually went up because it was easier for them to negotiate.
> Strongest idea I'm aware of is radical pay transparency.
This falls apart immediately. Executive compensation is radically transparent at every publicly traded company and yet people are just ok with the Grand Canyon sized gap that has grown between average worker and executives over the last 40 years.
What? How would executive pay transparency help workers? If worker pay is transparent for all positions, that would help negotiations. Merely making executive pay transparent does nothing to help anyone other than the executives.
When a CEO wants a pay raise they go to the board and say “look at how much these other public company CEOs get paid. You should pay me more.” The equivalent for a worker is pointing at pay at competitors or of their peers (or you know, producing a job offer for more pay by which point their employer has ended up in a worse position because the employee has a much better BATNA). The alternative is not for the worker to say “look how much the CEO is paid, you should pay me more” because the response is that the CEO does different work and their pay is set by different people who care about different things—the pay is not really commensurate.
Under the system you propose, there is zero chance that any mean worker will look at the pay of his higher-producing counterpart and not simultaneously claim to be underpaid and unfairly measured. You have to be completely unfamiliar with human nature to believe otherwise.
There's two types of systems you can choose to live under: one that makes it comfortable to be a mean producer, or one that incentives extreme output. It's fine to argue that the mean producer deserves more but let's not pretend that's not a tradeoff.
Extremely productive workers would not want pay transparency because that paints a target on their backs.
What would the incentive be for a mean, or even underperforming, worker to look at the pay of a top performer and do anything other than argue for more pay for the same amount of work? The value a worker brings is not a completely tangible assessment, it has vague and qualitative components to it. Whereas, how much that worker is paid is a hard quantitative fact and is not debatable.
If you remove the ability of the manager to obfuscate where an employee's earnings stack up in the absolute rank, or how much additional pay is on the table, then the only thing to argue about is how much value the worker brings. The worker will always be able to claim that they deliver unmeasured value, or that their tangible contributions are not properly valued. Multiply this conversation out across 50% of your work force, and quickly the only rational thing to do, as a manager, is to bring down the top earner's pay to a level that will not generate complaints from the mean worker.
This is the aim of all collectivism frankly, to appease the mean producer at the expense of society ultimately.
If you don't believe this, explain please the chain of reasoning that would lead a lower paid worker to conclude their pay is fair and that they should not try to argue for more money.
"What would the incentive be for a mean, or even underperforming, worker to look at the pay of a top performer and do anything other than argue for more pay for the same amount of work? "
He can argue for more money and management then has to justify why there is a difference. That's not different from some people being promoted (and paid better) faster than others.
Because the top performer most likely doesn't make the most money. They might also have a better negotiating position if other companies are pressured to do the same and reveal they pay better for a similar performance.
All of this is somewhat of a moot argument though as individuals hold very little bargaining power in the general work force. You might have some leverage when applying for a C-level position (but let's be honest, you don't go through a regular hiring process for positions like that) but if you want anything that's a significantly deviation from what the company will happily give you, you'll get nowhere without collective bargaining (and in fact you will more likely just get replaced). Individual workers don't hold much power, even if they're made to feel like celebrity athletes with foosball tables, fruit bowls and free drinks on tap.
Because "a top performer" is not a wholistic judge of what someone is doing, how they got there, the circumstances surrounding that individual, etc.
You're speaking of this hierarchy of "obfuscated" value brought to the table and then comparing it to a somewhat simplistic ( rank 1 is 1x valuable, rank 2 is 2x,...nx valuable) image of compensation. that's not how the real world works. You're abstracting to the spherical cow level of understanding of reality, there isn't "the worker" and "the manager" there are positions and responsibilities, if a manager lost all their workers tomorrow, they would be more out of luck than if a set of workers lost their manager, on balance, the workers have the implicit understanding that they formulate the important core of whatever network they support.
It's really only the social scaffolding we construct that maintains that hiearchy.
You haven't addressed any part of this argument at all.
Managers can and do stack rank their employees, and pay them differentially according to that ranking, I'm sorry if you're learning this just now. If anything, you've validated my point by agreeing that employee value is a holistic assessment -- i.e. it has non-quantitative elements.
That understanding is what makes it possible for someone who produces less value for the company to argue that they actually produce more. Once they understand exactly how much is available to bargain over, the manager has no leverage to push back, and there is no reason not to make the case that one's non-quantitative competences are worth all of that gap. It costs approximately nothing to keep asking for more money.
You're forgetting that there are other employees and other firms in the world. Either class is free to look outside the current relationship if they are unhappy, and this can rely entirely on subjective judgement.
If you see a bunch of people who are paid more than you, you can judge that you'll be able to find another employer who will pay you what you want, but only if you have a reasonable overview of what the salaries are in the system.
Same goes in the boss side, he can decide whether he wants to hit or stick.
You're literally making an argument based on the 19th century Great Man theory[0].
I know that we like to make bold claims of 10x or 0.1x developers sometimes but imagined "extremely productive workers" don't exist in the absolute, businesses are not meritocratic and the people being paid 10x, 100x, or 1,000x that of the lowest earning worker or even the median earning worker in the company don't contribute in proportion to the company's income.
> You have to be completely unfamiliar with human nature to believe otherwise.
"Their" ideology is always unreasonable and superstitious while "our" ideology is always common sense and based on familiarity with human nature. Of course "our" ideology isn't an ideology to begin with, because our politics are fact-based and free of the constraints of ideology, they're just based on premises we hold to be self-evident. Did I get that about right?
"Under the system you propose, there is zero chance that any mean worker will look at the pay of his higher-producing counterpart and not simultaneously claim to be underpaid and unfairly measured. You have to be completely unfamiliar with human nature to believe otherwise.
"
It's you who is unfamiliar with actual human nature. There are plenty of places with pay transparency (Congress staffers for example). There are huge differences in pay and people are OK with that.
> There are plenty of places with pay transparency (Congress staffers for example)
Imagine thinking Congressional staffer, a job
- whose main value are the connections and opportunities available immediately after finishing a successful tour, and
- for which your current employer is approximately the only possible employer for you (if you want to be rep X's staffer you need a connection and endorsement to rep X, it won't help you much to have worked for rep Y unless Y is endorsing you to X)
imagine thinking these dynamics have anything to do with the common person's (or even a software engineer's) working situation. The pay is transparent precisely because there is nothing you can (or would) do about it, and the salary is not the point of the job anyhow. The reward is a lifetime of milking valuable connections and endorsements, and getting to one day feed at the same publicly funded trough as the other pigs, not a $3,500 salary increase.
You do that job because it's a pipeline to lobbying and other influence-peddling scumbaggery, not because you get rich or even make a reasonable living.
This entirely obscure example, if anything, is the exception that proves the rule. Do you have an example that doesn't involve just 3e-6% of Americans, all of whom are politicians or their aspirants/sycophants -- mostly contenders for worst people in America. Maybe something a little more relatable than the system of elite influence that undergirds the Capitol?
The entire point of the argument is that transparency in pay creates incentive to argue your pay, and weakens the incentive to increase your output. Here, there is a strong, shared understanding that the compensation received is not the salary, and therefore one is not underpaid in a true sense.
Pay transparency wouldn't tell you much about the actual value of the job. If instead, your congressional rep helped a lazy coworker get placed at an extremely selective top lobbying firm, but only helped you (the hard worker) to get placed with the manure farmers of America -- then you might suddenly feel that you were unfairly treated.
Show me that level of transparency and I could change my mind.
“ You do that job because it's a pipeline to lobbying and other influence-peddling scumbaggery, not because you get rich or even make a reasonable living.”
Not true. Congress is full of staffers who view as a regular job and do it for decades. The people who go to lobbying are a very small group.
First, it doesn't seem like a small number or rare phenomenon to me, and I'm far from the only person who's made this connection. [0] If you've got some numbers to quantify your claim that Congress is "full of" dedicated, dutiful, lifelong civil servants, I'll be happy to see that.
But, second, it doesn't take a majority to make that motivation a characterizing element of the job. Maybe some people are motivated by love of country or whatever to go earn $35,000 as a college graduate. But it doesn't mean that access to exclusive opportunity is not the well understood perk of the job, whether or not you avail yourself of it.
Of all the strange stands to make in favor of radical pay transparency... I personal would think that having to defend the honor of Congressional staffers would be a strong indication that the plot has been lost.
In my experience, the mean worker will look at the pay of the higher producing counterpart and not care. There definitely will be outliers, but they usually aren't the higher producers. They're just the people that are better at negotiating.
Companies that pay workers what they're worth is rare as fuck.
>"Companies that pay workers what they're worth is rare as fuck."
How do you determine 'what they're worth' in the abstract? Wouldn't the best guess as to any service's 'worth' be the price currently being paid for it?
Nobody on either side of a transaction ever has access to full information. Each side has some information the other doesn’t, and markets usually work pretty well despite that fact.
That assumes everyone has a realistic view of their contribution. I've definitely worked with "10x" engineers, and also "0.1x" engineers, and a good share of the latter would be really offended if the pay was fair and they found out they are massively "underpaid". Some 0.1x engineers I worked with were literally playing fantasy baseball at work, those would be fine, but many (including confirmed ones whose messes I cleaned up) had outsized view of their contribution, and they would be very unhappy under pay transparency. Whereas I think the "10x" engineers would not be much happier knowing they are "overpaid" compared to most. So, this system benefits no one... it only works if workers are mostly interchangeable.
Asking about someone's salary is normal in Cambodia, and in a Telecommunications company I worked, everyone knew each other's salary, which worked well. HR would send memos asking people not to discuss salary, as they couldn't play games. I used to tell people we were hiring to increase their asking salary, because I was tired of going to HR after their first week, when they realised they were being underpaid, and asking for raises for them.
skin in the game, people in power don't face any consequences for their actions and in many cases are completely oblivious to what life is like for the average person. America is completely divided from one another, if somehow we could get people to "walk a mile in somebodies shoes", I think there would be a lot more empathy for workers.
How many Wall Street execs have had to go to the Rust Belt and see the consequences of their actions first hand? Instead they just call it flyover country and don't have to see it.
Same applies to Silicon Valley honestly, I know a therapist who works for Google and they struggle with the job because of how entitled most Google employees are. Vast majority of them have no clue how good they have it compared to 99% of the population
I live in the rust belt and I've been spending a lot of time in a homeless encampment helping people resist forced eviction by the city. The overwhelming majority even of relatively economically deprived people around me have no idea how much people are struggling. Literally out of sight out of mind. Walking in those shoes would be great, but I'd take even basic acknowledgement at this point.
you can go for economic efficiency without the massive increase in income inequality if you spread the wealth to some degree.
This is also ignoring the externalities that Wall Street ignored, like the impact of China now having a bigger economy than the US because we literally built them up. Short term thinking in the name of profit is the root cause. The government should be the check on that type of thinking, but the major corporations have bought off most of the government
Many options were available. Tariffs, enforcement of environmental and working standards for foreign producers, taxation of companies outsourcing production and labor, distribution of a portion of savings to impacted workers, etc. For the most part the US chose none of these in favor of maximizing short-term profits.
> know a therapist who works for Google and they struggle with the job because of how entitled most Google employees are. Vast majority of them have no clue how good they have it compared to 99% of the population
And they don't see the irony of their own position?
If they're self aware enough to know how good they have it, why do they struggle with the job because of how entitled most Google employees are?
> As opposed to Stanford grads having a nervous breakdown or raging because they only make 500K and their friends make 700K or have a successful startup
Chastising or berating people for struggling regardless of their circumstances is an incredibly shitty thing to do.
Remove healthcare and retirement benefits from employers' purview, then tax employers on the difference between their wages and 1.25x the poverty line (including the typical cost of healthcare and 5% or 10% for retirement) in the positions' primary work county at a rate like 2.5x.
Basically set a floor on compensation that's liveable.
Is this an abstracted healthcare and retirement for all plan or is this, give everyone more money and they can figure it out, free market deal?
I'm a little confused, generally healthcare and retirement are good things to have at work, so from where I see it, everyone should get it from their employer regardless of job or you're advocating using it to disburse to a healthcare for all scenario (EDIT: via the gov't) (which I'm all for).
Side Note: For whoever is not the last one to the party like me, I just listened to a fascinating podcast (bbc) on David Ricardo's impact in economic theory, and a lot of the ills of today pretty much lay at his narcissistic feet. I would highly recommend taking a deep dive into how his economic policies actually make any mathematical sense and have influenced (conscious or not, the absurdity of modern markets and by extension modern business practices). /aside.
Abstracted, I'm not super opinionated about private sector vs public sector health care, but I'm very opinionated about employer provided healthcare being a not good idea - it turns into a fight where employees have to follow the moral dicta of the employer even if it's not something the employee agrees with, not to mention it's obnoxious to have it change and go through COBRA or exchanges for 3 month shots every time you change jobs. And that it messes up effective cost sharing. Not to mention people who won't change jobs because they're afraid of healthcare changes or losing it.
Retirement is similar - retirement benefits are used in manipulative ways by employers to make the labor market less competitive (vesting schedules, match timing and amounts, etc.). And for 401k-style plans, there's no reason your employer should decide for you which terrible high-fee investments you can use.
Ok, I see you're point, dealing with the obnoxious employer - healthcare provider package deal that they've come to some agreement with is very annoying, borderline dangerous in the worst case scenario. I guess I'm only opinionated on people being able to receive healthcare, irregardless. Unfortunately I think that if it's not given out by the gov't, it needs to be given out by somebody (e.g. pay the monthly fees per job etc and be able to get something when needed), I just don't think that giving people the extra money and saying "well if you're extra smart, and extra resourceful, you can figure it out actually works"...it's sad, but sometimes the best thing is an inadvertent safety net, even if some people balk at it
EDIT: I think retirement is similar, for basically the same reasons, yes, we all want to be the smart free spirited libertarian, but on net..what is this some sort of darwinian contest. boring yawn
In the context of this conversation, I'm not intending to suggest that people should be able to not have healthcare or retirement, just that removing them from employers makes it vastly easier to set a wage floor based on a poverty level that can include their costs and that can be full-time/part-time agnostic because there won't be such a thing as "benefits eligibility" based on whether you work 40 hours for a specific employer or not.
It's true that in theory the results should be about the same. Now that I'm thinking about it more ADA/Texas abortion-style enforcement of a better set minimum wage might be interesting.
More and smaller companies. More labour mobility. If companies are in competition and people can move, then wages will be bid up close to their level of productivity.
Lasting help on this cannot be had in any short time, because cultural change is required: A citizenry engaged with and learning about government at a practical, local level -- rather than playing games to maximize the volume and audience of their own ranting.
Schools would have to teach concepts like "regulatory capture", "rule of law rather than of men", "plausible deniability" -- along with the fundamental math, economics, and cultural history needed to apply them.
And parents would have to inspire their children to some effort in outward, altruistic directions, rather than inward, to their own immediate pleasure.
I’ve never studied philosophy nor economy so I don’t know relevant it is today, but Karl Marx had some ideas on how to fix this situation and wrote about it in Das Kapital. The short answer is basically democratize the workplace. Instead of a CEO and shareholders making decisions for the workers. The workers should have to powers to pick their own benefits from the profits they are creating.
This is “decision by committee” in practice, with all the issues relating to decision quality and operational tempo that entails. They are empirically inefficient, so other organizational structures very effectively outcompete them.
That sounds like a badly designed co-op, surely the better approach would be to swap the shareholders for the workforce and keep executive power centralised in a CEO?
I don't think anyone has an argument in favour of a committee making every single decision. The advantage of the co-op model is that the shareholders are all domain experts and the workforce would be maximally incentivised to pursue profits.
No, you're thinking of Soviet-style central planning.
The idea of worker democracy is not to vote on every single decision. You can still delegate tactical decision making and even overall strategic planning to individuals and in fact usually this is what happens. The difference is the power dynamic when a disagreement arises. The idea is consent, not compromise.
In hierarchical companies, the hierarchy decides everything and if anyone from below disagrees they can either fall in line or leave. This incentivizes those at the top to chase the profitability that benefits themselves most, which can often mean high bonuses short-term before moving on to a different company or aiming to sell off the company rather than build a sustainable business.
Cooperatives are actually fairly resilient and often also aim to strengthen their local communities.
> empirically inefficient
This doesn't mean anything if you don't qualify your metric. If you define efficiency in terms of profitability you're defining it in terms of surplus value after expenses including salaries that can be paid out to shareholders. Using that metric is nonsensical as the workers ARE the shareholders. If you mean for manufacturing coops the goods tend to be more expensive you're probably not accounting for externalities.
> other organizational structures very effectively outcompete them
This isn't really true either, unless you define success in terms of growth rather than sustainability, in which case the claim becomes almost tautological: coops tend to be designed to focus on sustainability almost by definition, so of course they'll perform worse when you measure them by growth rather than sustainable profitability.
>If you mean for manufacturing coops the goods tend to be more expensive you're probably not accounting for externalities.
What are the "externalities" in this case? I doubt an oil extraction coop is going to be paying carbon offsets.
Also, the metric that you failed to consider (other than profit/price) is market share.
>the claim becomes almost tautological: coops tend to be designed to focus on sustainability almost by definition
How is it "by definition"? I get that workers don't want their coop to go under, but I doubt that capitalist investors want their investments to go under either.
> Also, the metric that you failed to consider (other than profit/price) is market share.
In an economy where almost all companies are hierarchical capitalist corporations, most of the market share is going to be owned by these corporation regardless of how successful a few alternative models are. This is by simple statistics and the regression to the mean.
On top of that, in the current capitalist economy wealth naturally accumulates on a handful of companies (this is also a natural statistical phenomenon) and in the absence anti-trust and monopoly enforcement the biggest companies have an easier time driving any corporation out having a chance to out-compete them. This is also regardless of company structure.
Market share is not a good metric to evaluate efficiency for this reason. There are simply too many unrelated dynamics affecting the who will become market dominant.
>In an economy where almost all companies are hierarchical capitalist corporations, most of the market share is going to be owned by these corporation regardless of how successful a few alternative models are. This is by simple statistics and the regression to the mean.
But surely there would be at least one or two industries where coops rein supreme? If 5% of companies were coop, you'd at least expect 5% of leaders to be coop, or they control 5% of the market share.
>On top of that, in the current capitalist economy wealth naturally accumulates on a handful of companies (this is also a natural statistical phenomenon) and in the absence anti-trust and monopoly enforcement the biggest companies have an easier time driving any corporation out having a chance to out-compete them. This is also regardless of company structure.
why can't coops do the same? consolidate, gain economies of scale, making all of their members better off?
> If 5% of companies were coop, you'd at least expect 5% of leaders to be coop, or they control 5% of the market share.
This not how hegemony works in statistics. If you have 10.000 companies and 9.500 are capitalist hierarchical corporations, all else being equal, if you take the top 300 companies by profit (assuming profit is not uniformly distributed), the chances of the sample of 300 having the same distribution as the total 10.000 is very slim.
Think about it this way: Take two normal curves. Align them so that they have the same mean and variance. Now shrink one of them so that it is only 5% of mass of the other. Now go to the right extreme of the unmodified curve (say 2 standard deviations where 2.3% of the unmodified samples are), do you think you’ll get the same proportion of the smaller curve or do you think it will be much smaller?
> why can't coops do the same? consolidate, gain economies of scale, making all of their members better off?
Now this is a more interesting question. The answer is not statistical but sociological, because statistically accumulation of wealth happens regardless of the system, and would happen also if most corporations were worker owned (I believe I even stated it above). However this question is also a bit of a distraction since the claim here is that market share is a poor metric to evaluate efficiency. And whether wealth accumulates in a primerly socialist economy like it does in a capitalist one takes nothing from that claim. A worker owned monopoly earning most of the profit can afford to be just as inefficient as a company earning it’s shareholders the pretty buck.
Because by and large they tend to be extremely poorly managed. Research has show time and time again that large multinationals have much more effective management practices. In almost any competitive market, multinationals will eventually dominate the industry because of their higher efficiencies.
OK, but what are the criteria for that? If the measurement is "most money, fastest, for the owners", than we aren't even talking about the same things. I live in the country where my utilities are all provided by small local co-ops. There are co-op grocery stores, too. As a customer, they all work quite well. They wouldn't impress an investor, but that isn't the point - they get the job done to support our community. Getting the job done is my measuring stick.
The limiting attribute of the smartphone market isn't the release cycle. Even large international corporations find it hard to compete in the smartphone market.
The biggest problem is that a sustainable smartphone product wouldn't sell very well and the market is heavily based on selling incremental changes and flashy non-features as groundbreaking innovations.
I'd say one of the biggest differences between sectors where coops do well and where they don't is that the latter tend to be sectors where the value proposition of the product is almost entirely driven by marketing and the products are only profitable because they're disposable.
Apple doesn't make a profit from selling you an iPhone every five years. Apple makes a profit from selling (lowercase-i) influencers an iPhone at least once a year to convince everyone else they should really cycle out their current model long before it's actually obsolete.
Another important factor of course is that coops tend to focus on local communities and smartphones are almost entirely manufactured overseas at this point (speaking from an American or European POV). It's hardly a coop if 99% of the workers involved are working for non-coop subcontractors in a different country.
Managing a co-op is much more difficult. Basically, it depends on people. Where your view are very much aligned, you can do quite well. Where I live there are many green co-ops run by people with similar views and aims, and there is a sense of community. In this way you increase the chances of success. Also there is some relationship between the people who run the co-op and the customers.
If this sense of community is lacking and people think about themselves mainly (as it normally happens), you can't make any meaningful decision. So in this case a more traditional business is likely to give much better results.
> The question is: why are co-ops relatively uncommon?
Because they have access to capital problems, because the people who disproportionately control capital also prefer that capital, not labor, controls the business.
Because capital is more necessary than many would like to admit. It's why a lot of the more common worker co-ops were essentially gifts to employees from the original founder. Bob's red mill, Publix, etc...
Most people want to be told what to do, get paid for it and go home. Only small part is able to accept risk of loss and stress coming from actually taking care of the company.
That's exactly what happened in Eastern block countries. Most of the people exploited the system for personal gain. (source: living there). Marxism is pure utopia.
You're conflating Soviet style socialism for all forms of socialism (though it's hard to blame you as the Soviet Union didn't really care to make that distinction either) much like some critics of capitalism are conflating utopian anarcho-capitalism or extreme laissez-faire capitalism for all forms of capitalism (which is how you get political pundits fluctuating between calling social market economies in Europe "socialist" or "capitalist" within the same sentence depending on whether they talk about aspects they like or not). Worker democracy is actually closer to anarchism (which for most Westerners sadly evokes images of angsty teenagers in black hoodies throwing molotovs or spray painting buildings, rather than community organizing and radical democracy).
Soviet style socialism was heavily based on a fixed hierarchy (the infamous communist bureaucracy) and centralization. Especially near its decline (i.e. 1980s) it was heavily plagued with corruption and shortages of "non-essential" goods because of structural issues but also the dual stresses of trying to compete with capitalist economies through production for exports and trying to compete with capitalist militaries through production for weapons and supplies for strategic partners. All this while also starting from the disadvantage of not only having been an agricultural economy until fairly recently but also having suffered massive losses in a world war while still recovering from their own civil war.
Ironically, the Soviets were actually a bad example of organizing around "soviets" (worker councils) and the Bolshevist revolution involved disempowering and purging a lot of worker democracies and trade unions as "counter-revolutionary" because the founders thought they had to lay the groundwork for socialism from the top down (ironically often using pre-existing capitalist structures and stakeholders) rather than build from the ground up.
There are many thinkers outside the Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist spheres like Bakunin, Bookchin, Kropotkin or Malatesta. The reason these names tend to be less familiar is not only that the Soviet and Maoist traditions tended to heavily suppress anarchism but also that anarchism by its nature puts less emphasis on individuals than ideas so you rarely find self-identifying "Bookchinists" or "Malatestaists".
> Most people want to be told what to do, get paid for it and go home.
Voter turnout in many country has been as low as less than 50%. One could say that in those countries "most people" want to be told what to do and not bother with politics. Would you argue this means they should therefore not be allowed to vote?
You can participate in a worker democracy led company without participating in elections or any of the decision-making processes. The important point is that if you do care or an issue arises that affects you more strongly, you can. Under a hierarchical company the best you can hope for unless you have a union is to raise the issue with HR or management and hope doing so will not affect you negatively.
I have no idea why you are thinking I want to disallow anything. I merely point out that most of the people is not proactive enough to form cooperative.
To add some background I'm running sizable division in a company hiring about 100 people. We're very flat and open to suggestions no matter what is your title. Some people actually use that opportunity, but it's maybe a half. And we're actually targeting for that when hiring! More than that - over the years we had some people left us, because they wanted narrower responsibility, without bothering them with bigger picture.
As for the discussion about "true Marxism" - sorry. Hard pass.
> I have no idea why you are thinking I want to disallow anything.
Because if we wanted our governments to work like businesses, we'd have to ban elections. Businesses deciding to offer some leeway towards employees in their decision making process doesn't turn them into democracies the same way as a dictatorship doing opinion polls wouldn't be a democracy.
> As for the discussion about "true Marxism" - sorry. Hard pass.
Nobody said anything about "true Marxism". Marx neither invented the ideas of socialism, nor do I care for his opinion on it in particular.
If anything my point is that the Soviets (and their related states) tried to sell their actions as "real socialism" but that this is like calling America's actions "real capitalism" despite other forms like social market economies (e.g. half of Europe) existing.
I don't care if anarchism is any truer of a Scotsman than Bolshevism, I only care that anarchism is more communal and less oppressive.
>Because if we wanted our governments to work like businesses, we'd have to ban elections. Businesses deciding to offer some leeway towards employees in their decision making process doesn't turn them into democracies the same way as a dictatorship doing opinion polls wouldn't be a democracy.
This statement has no connection to my comments. I am not expressing any opinion how I want business or government to operate. I'm just sharing my observations, about why people do not form cooperatives.
Unpopular take: co-ops will not be able to behave in sociopathic ways shareholder value driven corporations can and will be outcompeted because of that. The fact this arrangement is not sustainable in the long term doesn’t prevent corporations from being successful in the short run.
What exactly is the long term? 3M is 120 years old. Ford motor almost as long. DuPont was founded in the 1800s. Proctor and Gamble was founded in 1837.
All are still profitable today and in relatively good health.
That's basically just cooperative, and the main issue is that they end up not being competitive with corporation. We used to have a lot of cooperatives in Vietnam, they got outcompete by capitalist corporation over the past 20 years.
Yeah, Carl Marx died in 1883. The economy has changed a lot since then so perhaps his ideas shouldn’t be taken at face value. However I believe he saw his solutions as being applied on a societal level, i.e. no single corporation could fix this on its own. Socialists today still believe this and seek regulatory frameworks which will enable cooperatives to thrive in a better economy, and not simply be out-competed by capitalist corporations as they are today.
Marxism isn't when you have coops under the capitalist mode of production, because things are still being produced for the sake of profit, not for social and common, and it still has the effect of making living labour serve accumulated labour, among other factors.
That being said, worker coops are a good thing and are often more stable and efficient than conventional businesses^1 (not to mention leading to better outcomes for the workers). The problem comes with economy of scale when it comes to competing against accumulated labour (startup capital is a problem, and by the nature of taking startup capital you are working to multiply the exchange value of accumulated labour). The living labour of the worker coop will still likely be at work to maximize the exchange value of some other's accumulated labour (loans, contracts, etc) or become of the M-C-M model themselves, siding with accumulated labour class (bourgeoisie). That's capital for you.
I am slightly familiar with Marxism. One point I never understood is that Marxist philosophy is almost always applied as a solution to a currently capitalist economy.
What are the Marxist incentives for new business creation as opposed to just reforming an existing capitalist company?
> What are the Marxist incentives for new business creation as opposed to just reforming an existing capitalist company?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Capitalism is fairly recent. In fact "businesses" are fairly recent. Humanity didn't idle until someone came up with the idea of corporations, so I don't think you're asking how production or innovation can happen under models compatible with Marxism without reforming existing companies.
Under capitalism, the incentives for new worker coops are the same as for working for an existing company, i.e. not starving to death (or avoiding poverty). Capitalism aside, humans have many incentives for productive work. Research actually shows that intrinsic motivation can greatly exceed extrinsic motivation (e.g. being paid) but adding the latter can almost entirely eliminate the former, chronically: introducing money makes it a transaction rather than a favor.
If your question is why anyone would found a new fruit juice company under Marxist philosophy to compete with the existing reformed ex-capitalist fruit juice companies and claim some of their market share, I think you're still thinking in capitalism.
> Improved wages and working conditions for streaming
I’m trying to understand what this means. Was Netflix paying less than the rest of the industry or was there something else going on? The linked articles don’t have details.
I for one will be cancelling my netflix and apple tv subscriptions if the IATSE strike happens tomorrow. Tech is such a multiplier when it comes to consolidation of power, workers need to stand united whenever possible.
Let your conscience guide you, but in my opinion you should look to the union to see what they are asking you to do. A boycott of a struck company is not necessarily what the union wants you to do. One can imagine, for instance, that consumers continue to demand a company's product, demand that strengthens the union's bargaining power. When in doubt you can always check the union's web site or social media to see what you can do to support them.
It looks like it’s been averted, but yeah, I’ll be doing the same if I need to.
It’s gonna be rough since I have so goddamn many streaming services — youtubeTV, hulu, netflix, hbomax, amazon, mubi, etc… even worse since I have three days off next week and was entirely looking forward to a lazy ass couch planted binge fest, but here we are.
I'll throw out there that strikes are never for sure averted until the time for the strike has passed. Wildcat strikes where the deal negotiated isn't accepted by the masses of the striking workers and they strike anyway are always an option. The West Virginia teachers' strike a few years back went wildcat pretty soon, with the teachers continuing to strike after not accepting the deal the union negotiated. The union was then able to get a better deal for the teachers.
Sadly since tech ate the economy software engineers are one of the only groups with any worker power and we're paid way too much to ever use it.
EDIT:
I was listening to some of the IATSE workers and it sounds like their working conditions deteriorated when Netflix and Amazon bought up Hollywood and shifted the industry from films to churning out long series for streaming. It made me really think about the impact that tech has had on the country in the last 15 years. Growing up in the early 2000s I was very bullish on tech being a force for good (thanks Google and "making the world a better place") but looking at the world that we created is sad to see.
I went biking early in the morning a few times this week and came across a bunch of Uber drivers sleeping in their cars with jackets over their heads. All of their strikes and organizing hasn't worked out, they're not "employees" and because they're a global workforce it's hard for them to organize. A few Dev ops engineers at Uber walking off their job for a few days could lead to more change for the workers than all of the NYC drivers striking for weeks.
Same goes for Amazon warehouse and delivery drivers. From all of the reporting that I've seen their working conditions are awful but because they're distributed it's hard for them to organize.
I grew up on the poorer side of Queens and have high school friends who I can't talk out of falling for NFT and crypto scams.
As much as I enjoy using Airbnb it has played a role in reducing the supply of housing and increased housing costs.
My younger female cousins are addicted to Instagram and are clearly having body image problems, with some of them opting to get plastic surgery to achieve the typical filtered Instagram look.
TLDR: Tech is quickly taking over most industries and consolidating power to a few large players, which makes it harder for what used to be middle class workers to organize and negotiate better working conditions. As the people building and running these tools we have way more leverage than most workers.
So many of you are also convinced you are expert negotiators and 200x programmers who surely deserve, and can get, get more for your work than the average programmer, so unions would surely result in less money for you.
Or at least I sure do see that sentiment in most discussions of unions on HN.
I don't think HN represents the average tech worker so that may well be true.
At the very least HN represents the tech worker either genuinely interested or personally invested in their job if not being entirely focused as a place for the top performers to share projects and information in the first place. Since by definition half of people can get more than the average if you apply either the above filters to define the average HN user then most people here probably would be right - they could get significantly more than their average peer.
For the kinds of devs you are referring to, the kind that post on HN, I am skeptical that a union could materially improve the year-over-year wage increases they already see. At best their compensation trajectory wouldn’t change and unionization often causes wage compression in other industries (read: it would reduce their compensation). If you are one of those highly paid devs, everything about the calculus of unionization is unlikely to produce a positive expected return. Software is manifestly not in a race to the bottom; there are persistently more jobs than devs that can fill them if you are sufficiently skilled.
In Europe, businesses encourage labor solidarity among software devs because it suppresses wages in a global environment where software wages are rising rapidly. Exceptional devs are shamed for believing their worth is so far above their peers, even if it is true. I don’t believe most wage gains in software in Europe would be happening if US tech companies weren’t in Europe pushing the wages upward.
Unions focus on the compensation of the median ability worker. The issue in the software is that ability has something like a barbell distribution; workers at different ends of that barbell live in different worlds and are not interchangeable. The “median dev” barely exists as a useful abstraction.
Theory 1: HN commentators are irrational and could make more money.
Theory 2: HN commentators correctly identify that a union would make them less money.
The age old clash of collectivists and individualists. I personally think strong union activity is more likely to move tech clusters for America to China than it is to make software engineers more money. Software engineers already seem to be making a lot of money, it is unclear that asking for more will work, even if done loudly.
> Software engineers already seem to be making a lot of money, it is unclear that asking for more will work, even if done loudly.
Software engineers at Amazon, Apple, Uber and others could show solidarity to non-tech colleagues, just like in Hollywood, the Directors Guild barely has any reason to initiate strike action, but doesn't cross the picket line, but instead often supports "lowlier" unions.
That said - money isn't the only thing unions can negotiate: all that industry-wide malfeasance folk like to complain about on HN, e.g. around privacy and advertising: unions could negotiate rules around those.
Another one is a rule about not being managed by someone who can't code.
But in general the solidarity problem is huge. If you look at Europe where we get strikes now and again, there's always a fault line between the group that wants some change and their friends. The third party always has this problem of "do we want to piss off people that we personally are ok with at the moment?". It's understandable too, everyday people don't want to be bothered by some specific issue that causes a general strike.
> ... e.g. around privacy and advertising: unions could negotiate rules around those...
That is a political minefield, because it implies fairly directly that software engineers should try to leverage their technical knowledge to enforce their social values.
1. Risk of migrating the tech clusters to exotic foreign lands.
2. Some fairly substantial minorities in the tech industry do not support the political morals and values of the majority, and will be truly unhappy about that sort of faux-union.
But the situation is not comparable to gig workers, devs are much more privileged because they (think they) are in short supply. Devs may genuinely have no need for unions but the rest of the economy is increasingly exposed
Unions will come with professional licensing and tests to be a software programmer. I would hate this since now it’s very easy to get into the industry with several alternate modes of training. It would also create friction with hiring developers from overseas and really hamstring America’s ability to get good software out quickly. I also think we make a good living so I don’t see what exactly would improve. The only thing I can think of is unpaid overtime for salaried workers.
Licensing and testing is not an inevitable consequence of unionisation. Those are more closely associated with professional associations or guilds, which don't tend to represent the same kinds of workers as unions.
Your sarcastically expressed sentiment is correct. Unions play a zero-sum game. They change the way the pie is split between consumers, investors, and workers, in favor of the workers. Among the workers, they act in favor of the incumbents to the detriment of the newcomers. So the folks who are posting on HN will benefit from union power. Young people and especially women and minorities will lose.
> I went biking early in the morning a few times this week and came across a bunch of Uber drivers sleeping in their cars with jackets over their heads.
Or, it's because in the US (because I assume you talk predominately about the US), there are institutions, laws, culture etc which has been pushing the US society in that direction (and/or being less able to handle the continuous change happening everywhere). I'm not sure why tech is the only thing to blame here?
My perception is that there's always been a white collar/blue collar split that has hindered things.
My dad was involved in trying to unionize engineers at GE, a long time ago. There was a vote, but it didn't quite make it. It wasn't until like a quarter century after he died that I realized he might not have retired early by choice.
I have zero details on it, all I know is that it was pre-Jack Welch, and probably the majority of the engineers felt that they were too good for a union.
I am a member of a union that has a long and convoluted history, but I think the origin was basically about how office workers didn't want to belong to the same union as everyone else.
People said this was folly, that it was splitting the power of the employees to our detriment.
I used to belong to a union and while helpful for blue collar work, the benefits go away pretty quickly when you can negotiate as an individual, have high mobility and strong demand for skills.
When I was in union you negotiated as a group. You bring up the bottom and pull down the top. Seniority determines most of your compensation, not performance.
Is the scenario you have in mind when there is an actual bidding war, when you go into a negotiation of salary with an actual offer from another firm, and neither one is offended enough to eliminate you from consideration?
How often does that happen to you and how often do you think it happens in general?
You can always negotiate, can't you? I except if the job is on a collective bargaining agreement, sure, but your average Dev job is negotiable, no?
You don't actually need another job on hand to negotiate terms. It's also up to you what you want to haggle over, money or holiday, on call duties, etc.
I think the key is agency. If you have it, you can negotiate. If you're always in a terrible negotiating position like certain blue collar workers, it makes sense to be in a union.
Mind you, I'm not sure if would be bad for white collar workers to unionize. Doctors for instance are white collar and have unions.
You can always try. If you have always made market rate, then have you ever really negotiated anything? To benefit from negotiation skills, you would have to be making way below market and then somehow convince someone to pay you what others are making. And do it without flat out lying.
Most of the pay gap between the top and bottom performers isn't much to do with direct negotiation, it's the cumulative effect of star performers being in high demand and therefore getting faster promotions, more and better offers, etc. If they get screwed on a promotion they can get another ten offers and pick the best one. Iterate over twenty years and you have a gigantic gap in comp between the top and bottom within the same industry.
Sorry had to tend to something and didn't get to write more in my original comment but my point is exactly what you're saying. As software engineers we have a lot more leverage at Amazon than the warehouse workers, than the driver's at Uber, than the delivery drivers at seamless and instacart, at Netflix and Amazon than the IATSE workers. Uber engineers walking off for a day could do more for the gig workers than all of the strikes that they attempted in different cities.
You have to convince software engineers they are labor instead of temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Some do end up wealthy. Most won’t (so says the data [1] [2]).
Edit: In my experience, older folks are easier to sell on the idea because they’ve seen how the sausage is made and have had enough time to have possibility convert to reality. Younger folks are still…more optimistic than the data suggests is realistic.
> You have to convince software engineers they are labor instead of temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
At least in the US, they aren’t temporarily embarrassed, they actually are millionaires in many cases. Software engineering today may have one the highest expected ROIs of any occupation in history.
At Amazon and Uber? The problem is that they aren't not millionaires; they're mkaing 250k-650k/yr. At those companies, even in extremely high CoL, you can pay the landlord his due and be a millionaire in 5-10 years.
What percentage of all SWEs do you think those folks are? I acknowledge the outliers in my original comment but also put forth that they are a minority when considering the entire industry footprint. Software engineering is larger than just FAANGM.
When you pass by the homeless (along nearly every freeway) it's hard not to feel very privileged. Even though not wealthy, still much, much better off than many.
I’ve watched these walk offs at Google and Facebook. They’re not impactful. The company loses a day of productivity (maybe) but everyone still gets paid. Half the time the owners are like “yeah ! We’re with you about how the things we totally did are unacceptable”.
Now if they walked off the job for a year, then things might change because it could cost their bottom line meaningfully. Maybe. But. And this is a big but. The companies are sitting on tens of billions of dollars in the bank and have private police forces on campus. I’m pretty sure they’ll pay extra for any strike breakers to come in if it came to that to avoid setting the bad precedent (from their perspective) that labor is an equal party to meaningful negotiations. The police force will try to ensure the safety of the strike breakers. The company will also go on a PR offensive to magnify any small misstep to overwhelm the bigger story.
> but because they're distributed it's hard for them to organize.
How's that? In 1991, maybe. In 2021? If a movement like BLM can form today, if in the 1960s Dr. King could organize, then a seemingly simpler union organizing effort can't be excused due to distribution.
To the extent that the problem is one of distribution at all, surely that's a pretty minor problem.
The problem with tech is its highly monopolistic nature . Every tech sub-sector experiences a short period of chaotic growth and then The One gets chosen to dominate with the praises of the rest of the gang. The lack of competition in the tech sector is astounding on a global scale.
Can you name one of these sectors? Cloud for instance has cutthroat competition. CRM software as well. Mobile phones also have pretty fierce competition.
Social networking/blogging whatever else fb does, mobile OS, desktop OS , web search, credit cards, online advertising, online videos, web mail, ... Maybe cloud hasn't found the clear winner yet
I agree - but I think you're grandizing engineers way too much. I highly doubt "a couple" or DevOps engineers at Uber not showing up to work would do anything at all. Maybe if the entire DevOps team striked.
Rising living costs due to inflation and a few other reasons (such as global supply chains being a mess), will force workers into a scenario where they have no other reasonable choice but to strike as a bargaining tactic (if they can), as the companies aren't going to often voluntarily outpace inflation (ie inflation adjustment + normal yearly raises). The John Deere offer to labor for example was very mediocre. Deere can do a lot better, they're doing quite well right now, their operating income has climbed from $2.7b in 2017 to $7b in the last four quarters (and heading toward $9b). That kind of stinginess toward your unionized workers while the company is prospering will get you a strike.
Societal turmoil (worker, consumer, business) is one of the many not fun consequences from higher rates of inflation.
What's the point of striking in the globalization era? The number of hungry would be workers that would gladly take 1/10th the meager salary of a Western worker is in the billions.
What's to keep John Deere from uplifting the whole plant and shipping it to, for example, SouthEast Asia? Note that this is a long term lose-lose proposition for both workers and capital, see ARM China debacle for a textbook example. Alas I see no medium term disincentive on the horizon.
What was the point of striking a century ago in factories in the northeast US when workers in the Midwest and South would work for less? What kept factory owners from shipping factories to the Midwest and South?
Factories could move, but not at the snap of a finger. Union workers made good salaries, and jobs did not disappear from the northeast.
More interesting is Midwest and Southern factories. Midwest factories unionized, North Carolina textile mills did not. Midwest union workers like Larry Page's grandfather, who walked around his factory during a sit-down strike with a hammer to bash scabs and cops - they sent their sons to college with the wages they had, and their grandchildren prospered. North Carolina factory workers did not unionize, made low wages generationally, and the factories moved any way.
>What's to keep John Deere from uplifting the whole plant and shipping it to, for example, SouthEast Asia?
That word you use, "globalization" - I do not think it means what you think it means.
2/3rds of their 70 factories are already outside the US and Canada. So without knowing anything specific, I would be pretty confident that there is something to keep them from moving a given plant, otherwise they would've already done it.
They have factories in these countries, according to official filings:
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
China
Finland
France
Germany
India
Israel
Italy
Mexico
New Zealand
the Netherlands
Russia
Spain
If John Deere employs no blue collar workers, it's going to be awfully hard to get their congress person/senator to vote for lower import taxes on farm equipment.
Possibly, but I would be willing to bet the difference in labor prices abroad and in the US were greater in previous decades, and that labor prices abroad have been increasing quicker than US labor prices.
I know that with telecommunications, there are a bunch of companies here in Australia that are bringing call centres back on shore just because non-native speakers make so many mistakes with their data entry that it's not worth the cost of fixing it.
Offshoring has existed for decades but picking up and moving on a whim is not something companies do overnight. Things like access to raw inputs and availability of skilled labor are major viability factors.
Also, global transportation is a mess right now. Container shipping rates are high and ports are backed up. It doesn't do a company a lot of good if it can't get its goods from the factory to the market they're sold in efficiently and at reasonable cost.
> What's to keep John Deere from uplifting the whole plant and shipping it to, for example, SouthEast Asia
If they ever want to sell another tractor here, tariffs would be a good start. Why do you think in 2020, anyone is still making cars in America? It's not out of some misplaced sense of patriotism, or because Ford likes dealing with the UAW.
But for anything that's not heavy industry, that ship has sailed decades ago. Most people in the kind of jobs that need unions these days do work that is by nature local. Your grocer can't close it's Main Street branch, and re-open in Bangkok.
Shipping large equipment isn't easy, it doesn't fit in a standard shipping container, and there isn't enough demand to make custom ships (cars get custom ships )
There are many factors to factory location, labor cost being only one of them. As context, we would have to know what portion of their expenses are labor; it could be materials or machine tools or something else.
My current job just gave me a double digit raise out of the blue recently. To be fair 2 of the 5 engineers on my time had quit recently. But still, the smart companies are giving raises before people strike or quit.
> Deer goes through waves of big profits then loss.
No they don't. There's no magical set cycle of outsized profits and losses waves for Deere. Globalization and the world adding 80 million new people per year has created a potent demand for their product, which is why their sales have done well over the last ~5 years ($26b to $42b) - there's another 400 million mouths to feed in that time and another billion more on the way. And those people have more money to spend on calories than past generations. It adds up to the world needing a lot more farm output and a lot more farm equipment.
> Looking at the last 4 quarters doesn’t give you the full picture.
I wasn't only looking at their last four quarters.
Their last five fiscal years have been stellar in fact and getting better by the year. Covid only barely slowed them down. This past decade has been the best, by a dramatic margin, in the history of Deere.
One thing missing from all the media accounts of these strikes is an understanding that organizing a workforce enough to produce a strike takes years of dedicated work. Every worker that joins the union has to be persuaded one on one, you have to get the backing of community leaders, then you slowly start to do solidarity actions like everyone wearing a pin or whatever. You don’t call a strike unless you have enough support that you’re pretty sure you’re going to win. The strike itself is the tip of the iceberg.
What this means is that a massive wave of union organizing has been happening for years now which the media has, for better or worse, been downplaying or ignoring.
I am not necessarily against tech forming a union. I am however against joining a grandpa union like CWA or OPEIU. Some CWA chapters have a very anti-immigrant take on the tech industry which does not vibe with most people in Bay Area or NYC tech.
I think software devs kill white-collar jobs more than blue-collar. You're never going to replace a plumber with software, but you can definitely get close to replacing a tax preparer or paralegal.
What happens when minimum wage increases and businesses increase costs to meet the new cost of labor requirements? Wouldn’t that still lock out people from necessary products?
The premise of your question is not a certainty. Whether and how much of a price increase occurs depends on how much of a margin there is, and what price points are being targeted. If a widget costs $3 to make and sells at $10, then increasing the production costs to $5 may only change the profit, and not the final price. If a widget costs $9.50 to make and sells for $10, then the same $2 increase in per-unit production price would increase the price.
Which scenario we're in depends on the industry, but overall I don't trust the rhetoric of costs always being passed down to society as a whole, because it works to undermine any labor gains.
I think the sort answer is: “We don’t know”. We have tonnes of history to go by here. Labor costs have increased and decreased millions of times all over the world since the industrial revolution. If there was a universal pattern such as: Increased labor costs always increase product prices then surely we would know about it by now.
However we don’t have such a pattern. History has shown us that it is not so simple. Workers dissatisfaction actually costs workers productivity so a low payed worker might actually yield worse prices then a high payed worker.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of the companies which have high worker dissatisfaction and high chance of strikes, are multi-million dollar companies with highly payed CEOs and big shareholders that sometimes pay them self dividends and may have an offshore account for tax hiding purposes. Not only is this super frustrating for the workers of these companies, but consumer prices suffer as well. After all they could make the product cheaper to produce if less money was being diverted to the rich.
> After all they could make the product cheaper to produce if less money was being diverted to the rich.
Owning shares in the company means you'll get a share of the profits and dividends. Anyone can buy shares. Many companies go further and provide employee stock purchase plans and stock options.
Microsoft created something like 10,000 millionaires in the Seattle area in the 90's. Amazon has surely done something similar. Microsoft and Amazon millionaires abound around here.
> Microsoft and Amazon millionaires abound around here
Indeed, and Microsoft and Amazon products aren’t actually cheap either. I bet Microsoft could have sold their software somewhat cheaper, and AWS user could be saved a pretty penny if these companies focused less on creating millionaires.
That is entirely unfair and loosing the point. First I’m not gonna gamble my money on taking profits away from different companies. Second, even if I had the knowledge and the will to buy correct shares and make money by buying shares, that money probably deserves to stay with the workers that actually produced it. I personally don’t want to be the person getting the money that fellow workers earned but didn’t get.
But this is all besides the point. The point is that money siphoned to shareholders and CEOs is just as costly as money used to pay workers more. Both have the potential of ending up as increased consumer price. If your workers are demanding more pay, and you are a CEO of a multi-million dollar company, you could very well finance the increased pay by cutting bonuses to upper management and canceling dividends, as opposed to raising the price of the products.
> First I’m not gonna gamble my money on taking profits away from different companies.
Now we're getting somewhere! A true story. A friend of mine was offered a job at a startup. He was offered a salary plus a percent of the profits. He said he didn't want to take any risk, and wanted a higher salary instead of the percent. He got it.
The company was successful, and was eventually sold. The employees who opted for profit sharing got a handsome bonuses. He did not. He was incensed.
Yes. The company should never have given this option in the first place. Instead they should have given the workers a fair share of the profits (or hopeful profits in case of a startup), and then increased everyones wages in porportion to how the value of their work increased.
It is not in the interest of the worker to gamble their salaries like this, and it is often used as a tactic to pretend you are paying more then you are... Most options given to workers amount to less then two weeks of traditional salaries but the average worker experiences it as far more.
But again all of this is besides the point. I started out with critiquing multi-million dollar companies (not startups) with paying their shareholders and CEOs so much that it is just as likely to result in higher consumer prices as high worker pay. This critique still stands.
You believe that when a man makes a bargain, he should be angry if he's held to it?
> it is often used as a tactic to pretend you are paying more then you are
Not the point. The point is he wanted more money instead, got it, then was angry because he didn't get a share of the profits on top of that, which he explicitly bargained away. He was not a man of his word.
A market economy depends on people making agreements, and those agreements being enforceable. Anything else is simply unworkable.
> This critique still stands.
I read it as wanting a share of the profits without any risk. Things just don't work that way.
I think it’s kind of a misunderstanding that this is how it works. Increasing wages can save companies money by improved productivity and reduced turnover. Moreover the price of the product is dictated by market demands and owners may simply have to take less profit in order to sell at market price. That is of course if increased productivity doesn’t completely cancel out the wage increase. Finally higher wages means people can afford higher prices to some extent.
True, that is the happy-path scenario. There are a few steps in there that depend on the circumstances. There are other scenarios don't go that way too.
No. For example my Whole Foods is finally installing self-checkout registers. The labor shortage is so acute, that even the cashiers are complaining about how much extra work there is and how customers have bad attitudes for long lines.
Wages are a fraction of the final product price - there are material costs, facilities, rent, etc. So even if we double the minimum wage, the cost of goods sold would only increase 30%-40%, so the folks depending on minimum wage have a major increase of their quality of life.
> businesses increase costs to meet the new cost of labor requirements
These strikes, more often than not, are happening at larger firms (e.g., incumbent monopolies like John Deere, Kelloggs, Nabisco, etc.) with much larger profit margins. They would sooner wear the costs and pay lower dividends than hurt their competitive margin. But I do take your point that small-to-medium sized business take the brunt of top-down government policy changes like a minimum wage increase, and this can hurt competition.
I don’t quite understand the general anti big-tech-co/pro union sentiment on HN. Like somehow prioritizing engagement makes a group unforgivably evil, but literally hiring hit men to take out your rivals is no biggie.
Which hit men are you speaking of? The only person that I recall hiring hit men recently was a prince who has also pumped billions of dollars into Silicon Valley "unicorns".
Jock Yablonski + his family and Jimmy Hoffa (who likely did the same himself). They’ve gotten significantly less violent in recent decades but I really doubt they have knocked off the organized crime.
One way to understand this would be to ask people in the form of a question. Dear HN people who form this category, why do you demonize big tech while supporting unions who have killed rivals?
Fair point. So HN folks who support unions who have previously engaged in hired killings but are against big tech which (to my knowledge) have not done so, why do you support one but not the other?
"Pinkertons and militia at Homestead, 1892 - One of the first union busting agencies was the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which came to public attention as the result of a shooting war that broke out between strikers and three hundred Pinkerton agents during the Homestead Strike of 1892."
Maybe not "hitmen" as such, but certainly the violent enforcer arm of capital hired to attack striking workers.
I’m not sure how these situations are comparable. Balancing property rights with use of force vs actively hiring hitmen. The former led to new laws and the latter seems to somehow still be celebrated.
It seems like we are doomed to repeat these cycles because the necessary tension between labor and capital.
I'd love to hear any ideas on how we could shorten this feedback loop so we don't have to so closely approach the precipice.