3 ms·

It's not a matter of viewing them as an adversary, it's a matter of balancing your interests with the interests of the company. A company attempts to maximize

by sc68cal 15y ago

It's not a matter of viewing them as an adversary, it's a matter of balancing your interests with the interests of the company. A company attempts to maximize profits while reducing labor costs. An employee attempts to maxamize profit from their labor, which is a fairly static quantity. New tools can come out that enhance productivity, but that only sets the baseline productivity that much higher. Wages rarely increase to match a jump in productivity.

Turing_Machine 15y ago
It's in the interest of both the employer and the employee to make a lot of money. If the employer doesn't make money, neither does the employee. "Wages rarely increase to match a jump in productivity." That's why we're all still working 80 hours a week to pay for a daily bowl of gruel and an unheated shack, right?
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  We're not, but that's doesn't address his statement. Does it match the increase in productivity?
  - dantheman 15y ago
    Does the increase in productivity actually come from the employee or the infrastructure around the employee, developed and paid for - at financial risk, by the employer? If it's the latter, shouldn't the employer and the investors who took the risk on achieving the productivity gains receive the reward?
    - sc68cal 15y ago
      Here's a fairly recent NYT article that discusses this, although most of it is within the context of the then "current happenings" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html For most of the last century, wages and productivity — the key measure of the economy’s efficiency — have risen together, increasing rapidly through the 1950’s and 60’s and far more slowly in the 1970’s and 80’s. So in this regard, Turing_Machine is indeed correct that wages have historically followed increases in productivity. My remarks were imprecise, the word rarely should have had an asterisk to a footnote that states that rarely means within the last decade or so. But in recent years, the productivity gains have continued while the pay increases have not kept up. Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent, according to Labor Department statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. Benefits accounted for most of the increase. The BBC had an excellent graph that displays the trend over time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5303590.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5303590.stm The authors of the EPI report argue that low minimum wages, weakened union power, and the loss of both blue and white-collar jobs to off shoring do much to explain the jobs picture. Which leads us back to why Texas is popular right now. Most of the news articles are from the viewpoint of workers, discussing it in a negative connotation. I'm sure you can find other publications from the other viewpoint, that labor is getting cheaper and profits are going through the roof. Surely someone in the WSJ or The Economist has noticed.

by sc68cal 15y ago

Turing_Machine 15y ago

It's in the interest of both the employer and the employee to make a lot of money. If the employer doesn't make money, neither does the employee. "Wages rarely increase to match a jump in productivity." That's why we're all still working 80 hours a week to pay for a daily bowl of gruel and an unheated shack, right?

bluedanieru 15y ago
We're not, but that's doesn't address his statement. Does it match the increase in productivity?
- dantheman 15y ago
  Does the increase in productivity actually come from the employee or the infrastructure around the employee, developed and paid for - at financial risk, by the employer? If it's the latter, shouldn't the employer and the investors who took the risk on achieving the productivity gains receive the reward?
  - sc68cal 15y ago
    Here's a fairly recent NYT article that discusses this, although most of it is within the context of the then "current happenings" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html For most of the last century, wages and productivity — the key measure of the economy’s efficiency — have risen together, increasing rapidly through the 1950’s and 60’s and far more slowly in the 1970’s and 80’s. So in this regard, Turing_Machine is indeed correct that wages have historically followed increases in productivity. My remarks were imprecise, the word rarely should have had an asterisk to a footnote that states that rarely means within the last decade or so. But in recent years, the productivity gains have continued while the pay increases have not kept up. Worker productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, while total compensation for the median worker rose 7.2 percent, according to Labor Department statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. Benefits accounted for most of the increase. The BBC had an excellent graph that displays the trend over time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5303590.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5303590.stm The authors of the EPI report argue that low minimum wages, weakened union power, and the loss of both blue and white-collar jobs to off shoring do much to explain the jobs picture. Which leads us back to why Texas is popular right now. Most of the news articles are from the viewpoint of workers, discussing it in a negative connotation. I'm sure you can find other publications from the other viewpoint, that labor is getting cheaper and profits are going through the roof. Surely someone in the WSJ or The Economist has noticed.