3 ms·

It's probably not a popular opinion, but what is undercompensation? If I can employ 10,000 people at $X to achieve goal Y, and those 10,000 people are fine with

It's probably not a popular opinion, but what is undercompensation? If I can employ 10,000 people at $X to achieve goal Y, and those 10,000 people are fine with said agreement and willing to work at said rate, then I am not undercompensating them. Then you are paying them market rate. Now, this might not be much above minimum wage and it might seem outrageously cheap. But you're not undercompensating them if you can find the people.

mulmen 9y ago
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. It may be possible to find people willing to do that work at that price because those people are desperate. This type of thinking is why market forces alone cannot sustain a middle class.
itchyouch 9y ago
Market rate == value, not fair or unfair compensation (from the wager earner perspective). If the value generated from work is less than minimum wage, it may not be that fair to the business, but usually those types of unfair scenarios are corrected. Fairness in compensation for an individual revolves around a livable wage. Of course, “livable” is highly debatable. Should livable compensation be enough to be able to save? Does it include being able to afford a home in a safe neighborhood? What is safe?
lsc 9y ago
The argument comes down to the fact that the market is organized by and for the owners of capital, and that is largely a group you are born into. If you don't control capital, you participate in the market as a commodity. Functionally, we've got a two-tiered system, and transitioning between those tiers is quite difficult. Most of us here on hn are at least very expensive commodities, which isn't quite the same as being a capital owner, but it's a lot more comfortable and a lot more free than being an inexpensive commodity, the leasing of which often cannot cover operating expenses. I personally have spent some time operating as a small time owner of capital... and I should write more about that; Experimentally, I personally am better off as an expensive commodity, precisely because it's quite difficult to make that jump from commodity to capitalist. I wasn't good enough to make it. I can see how if I were a little smarter, a lot more disciplined, if I had more luck or sense, I might have made the jump. but I'm... not average in a whole lot of ways. The average person is going to have a much harder time of it than I did.
- mulmen 9y ago
  This is a great insight and I completely agree about the two class system that capitalism creates. I think capitalist vs commodity is a much more clear framing of my perception of our system than millionaire vs billionaire. Do you think it is a reality of capitalism that there be these two classes? Certainly capitalists must exist in capitalism but is it possible for us all to be capitalists? I see no reason why not. Can one be both a capitalist and a commodity?
  - lsc 9y ago
    You could argue that all are capitalists, it's just that some of us only own significant capital in the form of our own bodies and minds. My point is just that the game is very different if the 'means of production' you control are something other than your own body and mind. It is only possible for us all to be capitalists (in the sense that is meaningful to me - that your income comes from the return on capital) in a world where the work is done by robots, or by people do the work for fun or adventure... because, you see, someone needs to do the actual work that keeps things running.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"But you're not undercompensating them if you can find the people." That statement ignores so much of reality today that it isn't really applicable. It ignores the fact that people must work in order to survive, and as such, the employer holds most of the power in that relationship.
JetSpiegel 9y ago
> But you're not undercompensating them if you can find the people. The capitalist and the worker are not peers, there is an inherent power imbalance. It's not a free contract if you can't say no. If the worker doesn't work, she will starve. If the capitalist can't find workers, he won't starve, he can always use the money for himself.

mulmen 9y ago

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. It may be possible to find people willing to do that work at that price because those people are desperate. This type of thinking is why market forces alone cannot sustain a middle class.

itchyouch 9y ago

Market rate == value, not fair or unfair compensation (from the wager earner perspective). If the value generated from work is less than minimum wage, it may not be that fair to the business, but usually those types of unfair scenarios are corrected. Fairness in compensation for an individual revolves around a livable wage. Of course, “livable” is highly debatable. Should livable compensation be enough to be able to save? Does it include being able to afford a home in a safe neighborhood? What is safe?

lsc 9y ago

The argument comes down to the fact that the market is organized by and for the owners of capital, and that is largely a group you are born into. If you don't control capital, you participate in the market as a commodity. Functionally, we've got a two-tiered system, and transitioning between those tiers is quite difficult. Most of us here on hn are at least very expensive commodities, which isn't quite the same as being a capital owner, but it's a lot more comfortable and a lot more free than being an inexpensive commodity, the leasing of which often cannot cover operating expenses. I personally have spent some time operating as a small time owner of capital... and I should write more about that; Experimentally, I personally am better off as an expensive commodity, precisely because it's quite difficult to make that jump from commodity to capitalist. I wasn't good enough to make it. I can see how if I were a little smarter, a lot more disciplined, if I had more luck or sense, I might have made the jump. but I'm... not average in a whole lot of ways. The average person is going to have a much harder time of it than I did.

mulmen 9y ago
This is a great insight and I completely agree about the two class system that capitalism creates. I think capitalist vs commodity is a much more clear framing of my perception of our system than millionaire vs billionaire. Do you think it is a reality of capitalism that there be these two classes? Certainly capitalists must exist in capitalism but is it possible for us all to be capitalists? I see no reason why not. Can one be both a capitalist and a commodity?
- lsc 9y ago
  You could argue that all are capitalists, it's just that some of us only own significant capital in the form of our own bodies and minds. My point is just that the game is very different if the 'means of production' you control are something other than your own body and mind. It is only possible for us all to be capitalists (in the sense that is meaningful to me - that your income comes from the return on capital) in a world where the work is done by robots, or by people do the work for fun or adventure... because, you see, someone needs to do the actual work that keeps things running.

s73ver_ 9y ago

"But you're not undercompensating them if you can find the people." That statement ignores so much of reality today that it isn't really applicable. It ignores the fact that people must work in order to survive, and as such, the employer holds most of the power in that relationship.

JetSpiegel 9y ago

> But you're not undercompensating them if you can find the people. The capitalist and the worker are not peers, there is an inherent power imbalance. It's not a free contract if you can't say no. If the worker doesn't work, she will starve. If the capitalist can't find workers, he won't starve, he can always use the money for himself.