4 ms·

Employers have all the financial leverage and employees have none. Even people with highly-sought-after skills and experience are more easily replaced than some

Employers have all the financial leverage and employees have none. Even people with highly-sought-after skills and experience are more easily replaced than some of those people can find a new job with comparable compensation.

notyourday 9y ago
So the two sides arrive at the "correct" amount of pay. How is that a problem? If someone wants to offer an employee more money, shorter commute, better perks, personal unicorn to fetch coffee from Starbucks, employee tells the employer "bye" and moves. If an employer finds someone who can do employees job better or cheaper, employer tells that employee "Bye!" Will the job market become commoditized? Sure. And it is absolutely great. Commoditization increases access to products of the said market. [Edit: It is highly amusing to see people's reaction in this thread. It is akin to a toddler stomping his foot saying "Mommy, I don't want to!"]
- empthought 9y ago
  This attitude is literally why Trump was elected president. Multinationals can just pay people in other countries much less for similar output. They have the leverage and former employees have none.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  In theory, yes, the parties arrive at the "correct" amount of pay, and the transaction goes forward. In practice, however, the typical employee only has one source of income (the job from their employer), while the employer has many employees. This makes the employee less able to survive loss of the job than the employer to survive loss of the employee. That's what leads to the imbalance of power between employee and employer. As an individual working for a corporation, you have to keep in mind that you're depending on a sociopathic entity for your survival. Said sociopathic entity is legally mandated to act in the best interests of shareholders and investors, and to disregard your interests entirely unless they happen to align. This makes them as dangerous as a wild animal, but, fortunately, more predictable.

notyourday 9y ago

So the two sides arrive at the "correct" amount of pay. How is that a problem? If someone wants to offer an employee more money, shorter commute, better perks, personal unicorn to fetch coffee from Starbucks, employee tells the employer "bye" and moves. If an employer finds someone who can do employees job better or cheaper, employer tells that employee "Bye!" Will the job market become commoditized? Sure. And it is absolutely great. Commoditization increases access to products of the said market. [Edit: It is highly amusing to see people's reaction in this thread. It is akin to a toddler stomping his foot saying "Mommy, I don't want to!"]

empthought 9y ago
This attitude is literally why Trump was elected president. Multinationals can just pay people in other countries much less for similar output. They have the leverage and former employees have none.
pmiller2 9y ago
In theory, yes, the parties arrive at the "correct" amount of pay, and the transaction goes forward. In practice, however, the typical employee only has one source of income (the job from their employer), while the employer has many employees. This makes the employee less able to survive loss of the job than the employer to survive loss of the employee. That's what leads to the imbalance of power between employee and employer. As an individual working for a corporation, you have to keep in mind that you're depending on a sociopathic entity for your survival. Said sociopathic entity is legally mandated to act in the best interests of shareholders and investors, and to disregard your interests entirely unless they happen to align. This makes them as dangerous as a wild animal, but, fortunately, more predictable.