5 ms·

That sounds more like a systemic problem where companies profitability is put forward as an excuse for anti-social behavior.

lj3 9y ago
> anti-social behavior You say anti-social behavior. The courts say 'maximizing shareholder value'.
- branchless 9y ago
  It just amazes me people can't see this. Workers produce value, their labour is the product. The difference between the value produced and the cost of labour is the profit. Paying labour as little as possible is capitalism. Competition between companies means there is no choice other than to seek to maximize this.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    No. I hate capitalism but this is not how economics works. Please, get a textbook or two (Barron's publishes some excellent revision guides that are well-written and cheap on a variety of business subjects, including economics), and study it for a year or two.
    - branchless 9y ago
      I disagree.
  - capisce 9y ago
    Exactly, it's one of the coordination problems inherent in a free market economy. It can be ameliorated or patched through regulation, unionizing, or solved indirectly through industry shifts causing increased labor bargaining power in a given sector. Although the trend doesn't seem to be heading in the direction of increased demand for labor.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > Paying labour as little as possible is capitalism. Overly simplistic, and incorrect.
  - laughfactory 9y ago
    Well, as an economist, you're close, but not quite there. In truth, in the US, what we've had for a long time is NOT capitalism. It is what you get when you start with capitalism and then add in centuries of rent seeking behavior. Ultimately, at best, what we have is crony capitalism, where corporations and institutions (including labor unions and the government) lobby (aka "rent seek") for preferential treatment under law. Crucially, I'd argue that we don't get fair capitalistic pricing of labor when there is asymmetric information in the market: Employers pay for access to salary data so they know how much you are worth (approximately), but you have no such knowledge (though this is better than it used to be with services like Glassdoor and Paysa and Salary.com). You're guessing as to the supply and demand for your skill set. Add in the common practice of requiring past salary history to be submitted as part of the application process, and you've got a recipe for suboptimal outcomes, at least on the employee side of the labor equation. If your price gets set below your market value early in your career, it may remain permanently below your actual value because employers often adopt policies which only allow for paying a candidate 10% (or some arbitrary number) more than their last position. This can happen because you underestimate your value initially, or price yourself according to the local market and then move to another market later (say from Salt Lake City to San Diego), or you're out of the labor force for some time (like mothers or fathers who spend them first couple years at home with their new child). The smart candidates will insist on keeping their compensation history confidential (I.e., not sharing it with potential employers), and pass on those organizations who insist that the data be shared. Force them to tell you how much your skill set is worth to them. I've used this strategy to move to a new employer with a 68% increase in compensation. I've also passed on opportunities which required compensation history to be submitted before an offer would be issued. Hopefully legislation will be enacted to make this unnecessary in the future and employers will simply be banned from asking for such data. Plus, there's a host of policy-related distortions which I won't go into, but basically, no, what we have is not a free market, and not capitalism. What we have is a mess.
    - branchless 9y ago
      Interesting that the one reply that wasn't completely dismissive, in the economics hell-hole that is hacker news, was from an economist.
- coldtea 9y ago
  The courts also said that for slavery. They are not some be-all end-all argument.
- mitchty 9y ago
  > You say anti-social behavior. The courts say 'maximizing shareholder value'. Do they now? https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  Do you think that this is what honest you wants to say about the situation?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "The courts say 'maximizing shareholder value'." there is no legal requirement to maximize shareholder value. That's just a myth.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Even if there was, it wouldn't automatically follow that you needed to maximize short-term value rather than long-term value. Many of the things put forward as "maximizing shareholder value" are talking about short-term value, and do so at the expense of long-term value.

lj3 9y ago

> anti-social behavior You say anti-social behavior. The courts say 'maximizing shareholder value'.

branchless 9y ago
It just amazes me people can't see this. Workers produce value, their labour is the product. The difference between the value produced and the cost of labour is the profit. Paying labour as little as possible is capitalism. Competition between companies means there is no choice other than to seek to maximize this.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No. I hate capitalism but this is not how economics works. Please, get a textbook or two (Barron's publishes some excellent revision guides that are well-written and cheap on a variety of business subjects, including economics), and study it for a year or two.
  - branchless 9y ago
    I disagree.
- capisce 9y ago
  Exactly, it's one of the coordination problems inherent in a free market economy. It can be ameliorated or patched through regulation, unionizing, or solved indirectly through industry shifts causing increased labor bargaining power in a given sector. Although the trend doesn't seem to be heading in the direction of increased demand for labor.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > Paying labour as little as possible is capitalism. Overly simplistic, and incorrect.
- laughfactory 9y ago
  Well, as an economist, you're close, but not quite there. In truth, in the US, what we've had for a long time is NOT capitalism. It is what you get when you start with capitalism and then add in centuries of rent seeking behavior. Ultimately, at best, what we have is crony capitalism, where corporations and institutions (including labor unions and the government) lobby (aka "rent seek") for preferential treatment under law. Crucially, I'd argue that we don't get fair capitalistic pricing of labor when there is asymmetric information in the market: Employers pay for access to salary data so they know how much you are worth (approximately), but you have no such knowledge (though this is better than it used to be with services like Glassdoor and Paysa and Salary.com). You're guessing as to the supply and demand for your skill set. Add in the common practice of requiring past salary history to be submitted as part of the application process, and you've got a recipe for suboptimal outcomes, at least on the employee side of the labor equation. If your price gets set below your market value early in your career, it may remain permanently below your actual value because employers often adopt policies which only allow for paying a candidate 10% (or some arbitrary number) more than their last position. This can happen because you underestimate your value initially, or price yourself according to the local market and then move to another market later (say from Salt Lake City to San Diego), or you're out of the labor force for some time (like mothers or fathers who spend them first couple years at home with their new child). The smart candidates will insist on keeping their compensation history confidential (I.e., not sharing it with potential employers), and pass on those organizations who insist that the data be shared. Force them to tell you how much your skill set is worth to them. I've used this strategy to move to a new employer with a 68% increase in compensation. I've also passed on opportunities which required compensation history to be submitted before an offer would be issued. Hopefully legislation will be enacted to make this unnecessary in the future and employers will simply be banned from asking for such data. Plus, there's a host of policy-related distortions which I won't go into, but basically, no, what we have is not a free market, and not capitalism. What we have is a mess.
  - branchless 9y ago
    Interesting that the one reply that wasn't completely dismissive, in the economics hell-hole that is hacker news, was from an economist.
coldtea 9y ago
The courts also said that for slavery. They are not some be-all end-all argument.
mitchty 9y ago
> You say anti-social behavior. The courts say 'maximizing shareholder value'. Do they now? https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eveningcoffee 9y ago
Do you think that this is what honest you wants to say about the situation?
maxxxxx 9y ago
"The courts say 'maximizing shareholder value'." there is no legal requirement to maximize shareholder value. That's just a myth.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Even if there was, it wouldn't automatically follow that you needed to maximize short-term value rather than long-term value. Many of the things put forward as "maximizing shareholder value" are talking about short-term value, and do so at the expense of long-term value.