4 ms·

No. I'm an adult. I handle my own issues.

by thrill 8y ago

ubernostrum 8y ago
Curious: do you also have that attitude toward starting a company? Would you do it with no loans, no investments from others?
- thrill 8y ago
  Why would I think the two should be equivalent or conflated? They are different audiences with different requirements, different risk tolerances, and outside of the shared work, likely different major goals.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    A corporation is a mechanism for individuals to pool capital and achieve greater return from that capital than any of them would using only their own personal resources. A union is a mechanism for individuals to pool labor and achieve greater return from that labor than any of them would using only their own personal resources. The only difference between them is the resource being pooled. As a result, I have great difficulty understanding why people are accepting of one but condemn the other.
    - rcoveson 8y ago
      Corporations pool resources to make things or offer services. Unions are just bargaining devices that attempt to tip the scales. If you want to compare unions to corporations, consider this: What if all the local companies got together and agreed to only pay tech workers minimum wage? By pooling their bargaining power, they can achieve a far better result! This is of course illegal (at least I'm pretty sure it is), but even if it weren't, it would be easy for startups to take advantage of: Suddenly, there's a surplus of tech workers looking hard for different work. Unions have the same problem: Some people might be happy to work for wages that the union considers unfair, causing the union to collapse. Unless, that is, there were some law requiring the businesses to only hire from the unions. I'm extremely happy to be employed in a field where I have natural bargaining power that doesn't need to be augmented by legislation. The day programmers unionize is a sad day indeed: It's just a few years before the whole profession is automated or outsourced away.
      - ChuckMcM 8y ago
        Interesting question: What if all the local companies got together and agreed to only pay tech workers minimum wage? Rather than use a hypothetical, lets use a couple of actual things that have happened; "all the local tech companies got together and:" * agreed not to offer jobs to the other's workers * agreed to get H1B visas rather than pay hire wages * converted previous employee jobs into contracting These are all things that have happened which could not be counter acted by disorganized labor pools. So when you say "I'm extremely happy to be employed in a field where I have natural bargaining power that doesn't need to be augmented by legislation." I expect you will find at some point in your career that your "natural bargaining power" will erode and you will be in a position where the lack of any bargaining power will benefit the corporation disproportionately. I think it is great that this hasn't happened to you yet but it would be unwise to assume it will never happen.
      - xvector 8y ago
        > If you want to compare unions to corporations, consider this: What if all the local companies got together and agreed to only pay tech workers minimum wage? By pooling their bargaining power, they can achieve a far better result! And this would be totally fine if we valued corporate rights over individual rights. But as a society, we value individual rights over corporate rights, which is why we allow for unions but not corporate collusion. Any individual cannot stand up to a corporation, but a union of individuals certainly can, supporting the subjective values of our society.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > And this would be totally fine if we valued corporate rights over individual rights. But as a society, we value individual rights over corporate rights, which is why we allow for unions but not corporate collusion. Unions are corporations. They are corporations which claim to represent their members' interests, but under US law, they are not obligated to. (And fittingly, there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest that many do not, which is one of the reasons for decline in both overall union membership and the decline in support for unions among union members).
      - 8y ago
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Many companies start with no outside investment or debt. Like unions, it's a risk assessment: do you give up control in exchange for stability?
s73v3r_ 8y ago
That kind of obstancance isn't a sign of being an adult.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  Unions are by their very nature levelling mechanisms, the only real situation they can be of any use is in non-competitive and relatively low skilled labor markets. Anybody who wants to develop their skill set and advance their own careers would want to have nothing to do with unions. If a union negotiates a contract for me, they're not actually doing it for me, they're doing it for everybody, which will mean that I walk away with compensation equal to the average value of all people in the union. If I negotiate compensation for myself, then I can get employer to pay me what I'm actually worth, and none of my salary will be used to subsidise other less ambitious/competent union members.
  - MereInterest 8y ago
    That's a very optimistic view, and does not take into account the vast discrepancy in leverage between an employee and an employer.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled. That discrepancy can only arise when labor supply greatly outstrips demand. In such cases, you could make an argument that the disadvantages of the levelling mechanism are outweighed by the protection that unions provide. However, no matter where unions exist, they will always restrict individual contributors ability to advance their own careers, as well as their ability to seek remuneration appropriate for the value of their contributions.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled" That is flat out not true.
dang 8y ago
That's good, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics, where the effect will be trollish. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No. I'm an adult. I handle my own issues.

by thrill 8y ago

No. I'm an adult. I handle my own issues.

Curious: do you also have that attitude toward starting a company? Would you do it with no loans, no investments from others?

thrill 8y ago
Why would I think the two should be equivalent or conflated? They are different audiences with different requirements, different risk tolerances, and outside of the shared work, likely different major goals.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  A corporation is a mechanism for individuals to pool capital and achieve greater return from that capital than any of them would using only their own personal resources. A union is a mechanism for individuals to pool labor and achieve greater return from that labor than any of them would using only their own personal resources. The only difference between them is the resource being pooled. As a result, I have great difficulty understanding why people are accepting of one but condemn the other.
  - rcoveson 8y ago
    Corporations pool resources to make things or offer services. Unions are just bargaining devices that attempt to tip the scales. If you want to compare unions to corporations, consider this: What if all the local companies got together and agreed to only pay tech workers minimum wage? By pooling their bargaining power, they can achieve a far better result! This is of course illegal (at least I'm pretty sure it is), but even if it weren't, it would be easy for startups to take advantage of: Suddenly, there's a surplus of tech workers looking hard for different work. Unions have the same problem: Some people might be happy to work for wages that the union considers unfair, causing the union to collapse. Unless, that is, there were some law requiring the businesses to only hire from the unions. I'm extremely happy to be employed in a field where I have natural bargaining power that doesn't need to be augmented by legislation. The day programmers unionize is a sad day indeed: It's just a few years before the whole profession is automated or outsourced away.
    - ChuckMcM 8y ago
      Interesting question: What if all the local companies got together and agreed to only pay tech workers minimum wage? Rather than use a hypothetical, lets use a couple of actual things that have happened; "all the local tech companies got together and:" * agreed not to offer jobs to the other's workers * agreed to get H1B visas rather than pay hire wages * converted previous employee jobs into contracting These are all things that have happened which could not be counter acted by disorganized labor pools. So when you say "I'm extremely happy to be employed in a field where I have natural bargaining power that doesn't need to be augmented by legislation." I expect you will find at some point in your career that your "natural bargaining power" will erode and you will be in a position where the lack of any bargaining power will benefit the corporation disproportionately. I think it is great that this hasn't happened to you yet but it would be unwise to assume it will never happen.
    - xvector 8y ago
      > If you want to compare unions to corporations, consider this: What if all the local companies got together and agreed to only pay tech workers minimum wage? By pooling their bargaining power, they can achieve a far better result! And this would be totally fine if we valued corporate rights over individual rights. But as a society, we value individual rights over corporate rights, which is why we allow for unions but not corporate collusion. Any individual cannot stand up to a corporation, but a union of individuals certainly can, supporting the subjective values of our society.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > And this would be totally fine if we valued corporate rights over individual rights. But as a society, we value individual rights over corporate rights, which is why we allow for unions but not corporate collusion. Unions are corporations. They are corporations which claim to represent their members' interests, but under US law, they are not obligated to. (And fittingly, there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest that many do not, which is one of the reasons for decline in both overall union membership and the decline in support for unions among union members).
    - 8y ago
bdcravens 8y ago
Many companies start with no outside investment or debt. Like unions, it's a risk assessment: do you give up control in exchange for stability?

s73v3r_ 8y ago

That kind of obstancance isn't a sign of being an adult.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
Unions are by their very nature levelling mechanisms, the only real situation they can be of any use is in non-competitive and relatively low skilled labor markets. Anybody who wants to develop their skill set and advance their own careers would want to have nothing to do with unions. If a union negotiates a contract for me, they're not actually doing it for me, they're doing it for everybody, which will mean that I walk away with compensation equal to the average value of all people in the union. If I negotiate compensation for myself, then I can get employer to pay me what I'm actually worth, and none of my salary will be used to subsidise other less ambitious/competent union members.
- MereInterest 8y ago
  That's a very optimistic view, and does not take into account the vast discrepancy in leverage between an employee and an employer.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled. That discrepancy can only arise when labor supply greatly outstrips demand. In such cases, you could make an argument that the disadvantages of the levelling mechanism are outweighed by the protection that unions provide. However, no matter where unions exist, they will always restrict individual contributors ability to advance their own careers, as well as their ability to seek remuneration appropriate for the value of their contributions.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled" That is flat out not true.

dang 8y ago

That's good, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics, where the effect will be trollish. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html