5 ms·

>Also, jobs should pay what they are worth to the business and nothing more. Why should a high school student working for McDonald's be able to afford a 2 bedro

>Also, jobs should pay what they are worth to the business and nothing more. Why should a high school student working for McDonald's be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment in the Bay Area? That's not some sort of right. If this is your argument, you’re going to have to explain why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor. This arrangement seems to be currently enforced with all kinds of threats of violence and deprevation(loss of healthcare, housing, etc), all of which are barbaric by the standards of any other developed country.

conanbatt 8y ago
> If this is your argument, you’re going to have to explain why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor. They arent.
nwatson 8y ago
Starting a business isn't an obvious proposition, and an entrepreneur takes a lot of risk and puts a lot of startup money (their own or OPM / investors' money) on the line. I've never been that business person / VC and do resent occasionally that my software creativity and grit fuels their occasional outsized returns. However, they had the vision and so get the "surplus value" ... and I get a comfortable-enough lifestyle in return, especially given that lately I earn a somewhat-Bay-Area salary after having moved to North Carolina. If I were renting in the Bay Area I'm sure I'd be looking to get out, and since I sold our condo (unfortunately too soon, in 2013) there, I'm forever priced out of ever returning -- I won't pay the inflated rents there. I look at four of my relatives who started a Salesforce consultancy, especially my younger older brother who started the whole ball rolling. Though a full-time Boeing 757 pilot for a major airline, he got a software degree, specialized in Salesforce work, started working with others, hired an initial team, and introduced several family members to the whole gig. The relatives founded a partnership and had around 40 billable, very good, consultants working with them, and had committed to longer term real estate leases. They had some marquee clients and a good reputation. Then they hit what hits a lot of family businesses -- intractable personality conflicts. (I'd joined this partnership briefly in 2013 but then bowed out after several months since I guess SFDC consulting isn't my thing and greenfield software constructing/craftsmanship is, and mostly because I sensed those personality troubles brewing.) So ... my younger older brother and younger brother both were left winding down this once-promising consultancy, taking low pay, risking a bunch of collateral (e.g., homes) they thought they would lose at one point, and eking out a low, but at least in the end positive, return. They each would have done significantly better just working on their own for the four years ... and I benefited financially by sticking with the startup world. So ... I'd like to take a flyer some day on starting my own business one of these years, and I won't feel bad about taking some outlandish returns. If things turned out real well I think I'd pay "my team" more than had been promised them. But I've seen the risks founders take and admire that, and they deserve their gains.
briandear 8y ago
> why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor. Because they are the ones taking the risk. People love to demonize companies, but they fail to acknowledge the thousands of companies that have failed, taking the owner’s capital with it. There is a survivorship bias because all of the companies we hear about are generally making a profit, but there are countless companies that have failed. So why should the owners get the surplus? Let’s ask another question, why should owners have to suffer loses? Owners are on the hook for loses, why shouldn’t they benefit from the surplus?
- ryanobjc 8y ago
  This is easy - because of limited liability. Technically owners aren't on the hook for losses, LLC structures and LLC-like structures (C-corps) limit the loss possible. They are only risking what they put up - presuming they don't break the law - and nothing more. Another system would penalize investors and owners of companies for all potentially likely damages downstream of their activities. Before you argue the world is like this, let me just ask you why do superfund sites exist then? Because of limited liability.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    > Before you argue the world is like this, let me just ask you why do superfund sites exist then? The vast majority exist because the operations predated environmental regulations. Also, a significant number are a result of government activities at various levels.
    - ryanobjc 8y ago
      ... and the original organizations aren't held liable for the sites. In many cases the companies aren't around, but the investors, and the investor's estates are. The point being that LLC has shielded people from the consequences of their actions.
triviatise 8y ago
No one is entitled to anything, that is the point. Business owners and employees agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement. But business owners arent entitled to anything except adherence to the agreement. If the employee can get a better deal someplace else, they will. The agreement is between the parties and no one else. External forces like starvation are not "threats of violence". What you seem to be suggesting is that government setting of prices would improve things. This has been shown time and again to not work because only the parties involved can correctly evaluate the value. Raising minimum wage slightly only has slight negative effects. If raising minimum wage really had no negative consequences you could raise minimum wage to $100 and it would be wonderful. Where government has shown itself to be effective is being a third party that enforces the agreements made between parties, setting the limits of those agreements (e.g. no voluntary slavery), and making sure that the rules are consistent enough that people can make business decisions and rely on the outcomes. The government just ruled that labor cannot collectively sue in a class action for wage violations. This is an incredibly bad decision, in that people should be able to group together and pool their bargaining as long as they are doing it freely.
deadmetheny 8y ago
>you’re going to have to explain why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor My workers didn't put their names on the loans necessary to start the business. My workers are free to walk away from the business if someone else gives them a better pay rate, or if they just decide they don't want to do the job anymore. They don't get stuck holding the bag if someone's sick or has a personal emergency. I want to pay the folks working for me well and appropriately, but if the whole thing blows up in our faces, the worst they have to deal with is finding a new job, where an owner has to find a way to pay off any outstanding loans and whatnot. Obviously it's not right to fleece your workers and pocket giant gobs of cash, but at the same time they did not take the risk in opening the business and thus the owners should get more. If they want the extra surplus value of their labor, then I would encourage them to start their own business.

conanbatt 8y ago

> If this is your argument, you’re going to have to explain why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor. They arent.

nwatson 8y ago

Starting a business isn't an obvious proposition, and an entrepreneur takes a lot of risk and puts a lot of startup money (their own or OPM / investors' money) on the line. I've never been that business person / VC and do resent occasionally that my software creativity and grit fuels their occasional outsized returns. However, they had the vision and so get the "surplus value" ... and I get a comfortable-enough lifestyle in return, especially given that lately I earn a somewhat-Bay-Area salary after having moved to North Carolina. If I were renting in the Bay Area I'm sure I'd be looking to get out, and since I sold our condo (unfortunately too soon, in 2013) there, I'm forever priced out of ever returning -- I won't pay the inflated rents there. I look at four of my relatives who started a Salesforce consultancy, especially my younger older brother who started the whole ball rolling. Though a full-time Boeing 757 pilot for a major airline, he got a software degree, specialized in Salesforce work, started working with others, hired an initial team, and introduced several family members to the whole gig. The relatives founded a partnership and had around 40 billable, very good, consultants working with them, and had committed to longer term real estate leases. They had some marquee clients and a good reputation. Then they hit what hits a lot of family businesses -- intractable personality conflicts. (I'd joined this partnership briefly in 2013 but then bowed out after several months since I guess SFDC consulting isn't my thing and greenfield software constructing/craftsmanship is, and mostly because I sensed those personality troubles brewing.) So ... my younger older brother and younger brother both were left winding down this once-promising consultancy, taking low pay, risking a bunch of collateral (e.g., homes) they thought they would lose at one point, and eking out a low, but at least in the end positive, return. They each would have done significantly better just working on their own for the four years ... and I benefited financially by sticking with the startup world. So ... I'd like to take a flyer some day on starting my own business one of these years, and I won't feel bad about taking some outlandish returns. If things turned out real well I think I'd pay "my team" more than had been promised them. But I've seen the risks founders take and admire that, and they deserve their gains.

briandear 8y ago

> why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor. Because they are the ones taking the risk. People love to demonize companies, but they fail to acknowledge the thousands of companies that have failed, taking the owner’s capital with it. There is a survivorship bias because all of the companies we hear about are generally making a profit, but there are countless companies that have failed. So why should the owners get the surplus? Let’s ask another question, why should owners have to suffer loses? Owners are on the hook for loses, why shouldn’t they benefit from the surplus?

ryanobjc 8y ago
This is easy - because of limited liability. Technically owners aren't on the hook for losses, LLC structures and LLC-like structures (C-corps) limit the loss possible. They are only risking what they put up - presuming they don't break the law - and nothing more. Another system would penalize investors and owners of companies for all potentially likely damages downstream of their activities. Before you argue the world is like this, let me just ask you why do superfund sites exist then? Because of limited liability.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > Before you argue the world is like this, let me just ask you why do superfund sites exist then? The vast majority exist because the operations predated environmental regulations. Also, a significant number are a result of government activities at various levels.
  - ryanobjc 8y ago
    ... and the original organizations aren't held liable for the sites. In many cases the companies aren't around, but the investors, and the investor's estates are. The point being that LLC has shielded people from the consequences of their actions.

triviatise 8y ago

No one is entitled to anything, that is the point. Business owners and employees agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement. But business owners arent entitled to anything except adherence to the agreement. If the employee can get a better deal someplace else, they will. The agreement is between the parties and no one else. External forces like starvation are not "threats of violence". What you seem to be suggesting is that government setting of prices would improve things. This has been shown time and again to not work because only the parties involved can correctly evaluate the value. Raising minimum wage slightly only has slight negative effects. If raising minimum wage really had no negative consequences you could raise minimum wage to $100 and it would be wonderful. Where government has shown itself to be effective is being a third party that enforces the agreements made between parties, setting the limits of those agreements (e.g. no voluntary slavery), and making sure that the rules are consistent enough that people can make business decisions and rely on the outcomes. The government just ruled that labor cannot collectively sue in a class action for wage violations. This is an incredibly bad decision, in that people should be able to group together and pool their bargaining as long as they are doing it freely.

deadmetheny 8y ago

>you’re going to have to explain why business owners are entitled to the surplus value created by their workers’ labor My workers didn't put their names on the loans necessary to start the business. My workers are free to walk away from the business if someone else gives them a better pay rate, or if they just decide they don't want to do the job anymore. They don't get stuck holding the bag if someone's sick or has a personal emergency. I want to pay the folks working for me well and appropriately, but if the whole thing blows up in our faces, the worst they have to deal with is finding a new job, where an owner has to find a way to pay off any outstanding loans and whatnot. Obviously it's not right to fleece your workers and pocket giant gobs of cash, but at the same time they did not take the risk in opening the business and thus the owners should get more. If they want the extra surplus value of their labor, then I would encourage them to start their own business.