4 ms·

This is such an emotional response. It's not about who does the work. It never has been about who does the work. It's about who takes on the initial burden of

This is such an emotional response. It's not about who does the work. It never has been about who does the work. It's about who takes on the initial burden of risk and what kind of compensation that risk demands. A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary. An entrepreneur taking on massive amounts of leverage can be completely ruined when that venture fails. There is nothing to stop a worker from quitting their job and taking on the risk of starting their own business. It happens all the time and if they succeed, they deserve to reap the rewards. If a worker chooses the safe path, they cannot then in good faith argue that they now deserve a bigger piece of the pie just because the enterprise has succeeded. Life does not work that way.

chatmasta 8y ago
I’m a big proponent of this argument and often repeat it myself. However, it is worth considering that it only applies to founder level executives who were there at the beginning. For a 100+ year old company like GE, the argument falls apart as the original founders are not around anymore and most employees have taken the same amount of risk (or lack thereof).
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>It's about who takes on the initial burden of risk and what kind of compensation that risk demands. A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary. Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business? Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground? Oh, right, it all comes back to the worker. Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck. Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business? In the capitalist value system, the latter: he might lose (temporarily, at least) his credit rating and ability to acquire capital if the venture fails; all the other guy is going to lose is the life of a worker, and who cares about that?
- tepidandroid 8y ago
  > the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance. > Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground? If digging the metal out of the ground commanded an executive's or major stakeholder's compensation, the market would compensate them. The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary. Almost anyone can do it. Can the same be said about directing a multinational organization? > Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck. I would hazard that the vast majority of occupations (in the US) do not involve workers risking their lives and livelihoods. > Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr? Wozniak sold his HP calculator for $500 and Jobs sold his Volkswagen for $1500. No one said it would be easy, but plenty of people started with less.
  - genericid 8y ago
    > The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary. This is merely a description of the current state of affairs. It is not relevant in a debate about the desired state of affairs.
    - tepidandroid 8y ago
      Really?
      - genericid 8y ago
        What kind of answer do you expect? "No I do not mean what I say, I'm just a markov chain."?
  - lucretian 8y ago
    Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance. only because of the agitation of workers to assert the value of their labor. which is the same concept we are all talking about here.
munificent 8y ago
This is such a craven, capitalist dogma response. > A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary. They are devoting an irreplaceable fraction of their life to the company. A large fraction of that time is spent learning the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All of that value is lost when they change jobs. When you work for a company, you have a very material investment in your long-term employment because the value of much of your previous time investment evaporates if you change jobs. Also, many workers move to work for a specific company. The area may have few other similar opportunities. Switching jobs means moving away from friends and family, selling a house (and taking a significant financial hit from the transaction), uprooting your children from their school, etc. The idea that jobs are somehow a commodity in a perfect market that workers can freely choose from is in no way connected to reality. Therefore, the idea that workers don't take real risk when choosing a job doesn't make sense. > An entrepreneur taking on massive amounts of leverage can be completely ruined when that venture fails. Do you really believe that? How many entrepreneurs actually risk their own well-being? If you have $100 million dollars and end up losing $90m on a venture, you're comfortably still set for life. Maybe you have to sell one of your boats. > There is nothing to stop a worker from quitting their job and taking on the risk of starting their own business. In the US, you risk dying from lack of insurance coverage.
- tepidandroid 8y ago
  > This is such a craven, capitalist dogma response. You are entitled to your opinion, but there is something to be said about proponents of the left who feel the need to argue emotionally rather than objectively. > They are devoting an irreplaceable fraction of their life to the company. A large fraction of that time is spent learning the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All of that value is lost when they change jobs. And a large fraction of the company's time is also spent teaching the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All compensated for of course, and lost when the employee changes jobs. >When you work for a company, you have a very material investment in your long-term employment because the value of much of your previous time investment evaporates if you change jobs. The company owes you long term employment as much as you owe the company your long term labour. Nothing is owed, nothing is done out of favour. If a worker deems their salary and options vesting to be fair compensation for their potential time investment then they take the job. Taking the job is not a favour to the company and the company is not hiring the worker out of altruism. It's simply a mutually beneficial relationship. The second that relationship is no longer mutually beneficial, either party is free to terminate the relationship. > Also, many workers move to work for a specific company. The area may have few other similar opportunities. Switching jobs means moving away from friends and family, selling a house (and taking a significant financial hit from the transaction), uprooting your children from their school, etc. A company cannot be responsible for all of an employee's future job prospects, family life, and fiscal decisions. It cannot be responsible for which areas have job opportunities and which areas do not. All it can do is offer a value proposition which the employee is free to turn down should they not find it palatable. > Do you really believe that? How many entrepreneurs actually risk their own well-being? If you have $100 million dollars and end up losing $90m on a venture, you're comfortably still set for life. Maybe you have to sell one of your boats. Why shouldn't I actually believe that? Do you actually believe that every entrepreneur starts off with $100 million dollars? Or is it more likely that they take 100k out of their savings and mortgage their house? > In the US, you risk dying from lack of insurance coverage. Another reason why starting one's own business is a risky proposition and should be properly compensated beyond that of the common worker.

chatmasta 8y ago

I’m a big proponent of this argument and often repeat it myself. However, it is worth considering that it only applies to founder level executives who were there at the beginning. For a 100+ year old company like GE, the argument falls apart as the original founders are not around anymore and most employees have taken the same amount of risk (or lack thereof).

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>It's about who takes on the initial burden of risk and what kind of compensation that risk demands. A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary. Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business? Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground? Oh, right, it all comes back to the worker. Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck. Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business? In the capitalist value system, the latter: he might lose (temporarily, at least) his credit rating and ability to acquire capital if the venture fails; all the other guy is going to lose is the life of a worker, and who cares about that?
tepidandroid 8y ago
> the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance. > Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground? If digging the metal out of the ground commanded an executive's or major stakeholder's compensation, the market would compensate them. The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary. Almost anyone can do it. Can the same be said about directing a multinational organization? > Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck. I would hazard that the vast majority of occupations (in the US) do not involve workers risking their lives and livelihoods. > Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr? Wozniak sold his HP calculator for $500 and Jobs sold his Volkswagen for $1500. No one said it would be easy, but plenty of people started with less.
- genericid 8y ago
  > The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary. This is merely a description of the current state of affairs. It is not relevant in a debate about the desired state of affairs.
  - tepidandroid 8y ago
    Really?
    - genericid 8y ago
      What kind of answer do you expect? "No I do not mean what I say, I'm just a markov chain."?
- lucretian 8y ago
  Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance. only because of the agitation of workers to assert the value of their labor. which is the same concept we are all talking about here.

munificent 8y ago

This is such a craven, capitalist dogma response. > A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary. They are devoting an irreplaceable fraction of their life to the company. A large fraction of that time is spent learning the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All of that value is lost when they change jobs. When you work for a company, you have a very material investment in your long-term employment because the value of much of your previous time investment evaporates if you change jobs. Also, many workers move to work for a specific company. The area may have few other similar opportunities. Switching jobs means moving away from friends and family, selling a house (and taking a significant financial hit from the transaction), uprooting your children from their school, etc. The idea that jobs are somehow a commodity in a perfect market that workers can freely choose from is in no way connected to reality. Therefore, the idea that workers don't take real risk when choosing a job doesn't make sense. > An entrepreneur taking on massive amounts of leverage can be completely ruined when that venture fails. Do you really believe that? How many entrepreneurs actually risk their own well-being? If you have $100 million dollars and end up losing $90m on a venture, you're comfortably still set for life. Maybe you have to sell one of your boats. > There is nothing to stop a worker from quitting their job and taking on the risk of starting their own business. In the US, you risk dying from lack of insurance coverage.

tepidandroid 8y ago
> This is such a craven, capitalist dogma response. You are entitled to your opinion, but there is something to be said about proponents of the left who feel the need to argue emotionally rather than objectively. > They are devoting an irreplaceable fraction of their life to the company. A large fraction of that time is spent learning the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All of that value is lost when they change jobs. And a large fraction of the company's time is also spent teaching the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All compensated for of course, and lost when the employee changes jobs. >When you work for a company, you have a very material investment in your long-term employment because the value of much of your previous time investment evaporates if you change jobs. The company owes you long term employment as much as you owe the company your long term labour. Nothing is owed, nothing is done out of favour. If a worker deems their salary and options vesting to be fair compensation for their potential time investment then they take the job. Taking the job is not a favour to the company and the company is not hiring the worker out of altruism. It's simply a mutually beneficial relationship. The second that relationship is no longer mutually beneficial, either party is free to terminate the relationship. > Also, many workers move to work for a specific company. The area may have few other similar opportunities. Switching jobs means moving away from friends and family, selling a house (and taking a significant financial hit from the transaction), uprooting your children from their school, etc. A company cannot be responsible for all of an employee's future job prospects, family life, and fiscal decisions. It cannot be responsible for which areas have job opportunities and which areas do not. All it can do is offer a value proposition which the employee is free to turn down should they not find it palatable. > Do you really believe that? How many entrepreneurs actually risk their own well-being? If you have $100 million dollars and end up losing $90m on a venture, you're comfortably still set for life. Maybe you have to sell one of your boats. Why shouldn't I actually believe that? Do you actually believe that every entrepreneur starts off with $100 million dollars? Or is it more likely that they take 100k out of their savings and mortgage their house? > In the US, you risk dying from lack of insurance coverage. Another reason why starting one's own business is a risky proposition and should be properly compensated beyond that of the common worker.