4 ms·

> If it did, nurses [...] would be millionaires (there's a shortage of both and they provide high value to society) I know the situation in Germany will be qui

> If it did, nurses [...] would be millionaires (there's a shortage of both and they provide high value to society) I know the situation in Germany will be quite different to that in the US, but the reason we have a shortage of nurses is that the pay is not decided on supply and demand in order to have enough of them, but rather as a political decision. > The law of supply and demand also doesn't explain or account for things like race/gender pay gaps, monopsonies, and collusion. I'll mostly (but not completely) agree here. Humans are never fully rational, and that irrationality is certainly a relevant element. > employment is very sticky Of course it is. Teaching an employee on your systems/way of working costs money and is an element in the decision of whether or not to hire an employee. This decision affects demand and therefore price/wages.

camgunz 6y ago
> I know the situation in Germany will be quite different to that in the US, but the reason we have a shortage of nurses is that the pay is not decided on supply and demand in order to have enough of them, but rather as a political decision. Totally and this is the danger of state-controlled markets. Capitalists have a point here. I tend to argue that at least in democratic societies people have some control over it, whereas in a free labor market they don't. But in practice, like so many things democracy is supposed to fix, people largely aren't concerned with it. > Of course it is. Teaching an employee on your systems/way of working costs money and is an element in the decision of whether or not to hire an employee. This decision affects demand and therefore price/wages. Definitely, stickiness works both ways. We've all probably encountered situations where someone's made themselves virtually unfireable because no one can do the things they can. I think generally people characterize that as some kind of selfishness or at least a labor antipattern, but I tend to view it as a rational response to a lack of financial stability: if your employer can completely destabilize you financially, it's pretty rational to take drastic steps to guard against that. Suffice to say it's complicated; far more complicated than the supply/demand curves charts you get in econ 101. --- I'll add that my prescription generally is: - Enshrine the right to organize - Require equal profit sharing across all employees - Require significant worker representation on corporate boards - Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g. if everyone makes $1m then 0 tax. If one person makes $100k and 99 others make $1, insane super tax them down to $100 (include tricky stuff like bonuses or whatever) - Heavily tax nationally high salaries with a progressive income tax - Heavily punish tax dodging - Set the minimum wage to a living wage and pin it to the CPI - Abolish "right to work"
- fastball 6y ago
  Interested to see how quickly you can completely destroy productivity and an economy with your policies. It just sounds like communism with extra steps.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    Eh, it's really just Germany+, and they're a pretty productive country. For example, profit sharing is "stock compensation" rephrased and not terribly uncommon [1]. Some of the most productive companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon pay with stock. [1]: http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2409883.pdf http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2409883.pdf
    - fastball 6y ago
      It very much does not sound like Germany+. > Enshrine the right to organize As in with a constitutional amendment? Because the NRLA already guarantees this. > Require equal profit sharing across all employees Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Require significant worker representation on corporate boards Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g. if everyone makes $1m then 0 tax. If one person makes $100k and 99 others make $1, insane super tax them down to $100 (include tricky stuff like bonuses or whatever) Germany doesn't do this and neither should the US. > Heavily tax nationally high salaries with a progressive income tax. The US already does this, as the US does not have a flat tax rate for income tax. > Heavily punish tax dodging Addressing symptoms not causes. Reduce tax avoidance by simplifying the tax code. It's that simple. > Set the minimum wage to a living wage and pin it to the CPI Probably a good idea. > Abolish "right to work" Terrible idea.
      - camgunz 6y ago
        I don't know how to say this without sounding super condescending but, if you want to have a discussion, please contribute to it in a meaningful way. You aren't asking questions, citing sources, or even making good new points. Beyond that, you're really uninformed. Here's an example where you could have done even a little token searching; the title of this article is "Workers on Corporate Boards? Germany’s Had Them for Decades" [1]. Another example is when you write: > Addressing symptoms not causes. Reduce tax avoidance by simplifying the tax code. It's that simple. It truly is not that simple. There's a reason tax codes are complicated and broadly speaking, it's that you have to choose winners and losers to simplify them and that's politically and policy-wise very, very difficult. I'm sure you'd like to dispute that, but the way you'll dispute it is with normative, opaque statements like "it's that simple" or "terrible idea" which will take you 8 minutes. The way I'll engage is by searching the internet and citing a post, and asking good questions to keep the conversation going. That will take an hour. I'm not gonna do that, and I think this breakdown makes it clear why. I think you should keep in mind what you're asking of people you're having a discussion with, either implicitly or explicitly, and how your responses indicate what you're expecting to get out of a discussion. From where I sit, you're not looking to learn anything or to inform me of something, you're looking to win an argument. Sometimes that's productive but it's surprisingly rare, and besides that, I'm not interested. I haven't learned anything from you over the 3-4 threads you've chased me down on, but I do feel a little worse about humanity, and I get enough of that already. And overall, I'd urge you to take a moment to consider the damage you do by logging onto public forums and spreading your ill-informed, normative opinions around. It greatly reduces the signal to noise ratio, and because it takes a lot of time to respond to things like this, it effectively DoS's productive conversations. I love a good internet argument as much as the next mega-arrogant software engineer but, we need to keep in mind the effect that has. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-boards.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo...

camgunz 6y ago

> I know the situation in Germany will be quite different to that in the US, but the reason we have a shortage of nurses is that the pay is not decided on supply and demand in order to have enough of them, but rather as a political decision. Totally and this is the danger of state-controlled markets. Capitalists have a point here. I tend to argue that at least in democratic societies people have some control over it, whereas in a free labor market they don't. But in practice, like so many things democracy is supposed to fix, people largely aren't concerned with it. > Of course it is. Teaching an employee on your systems/way of working costs money and is an element in the decision of whether or not to hire an employee. This decision affects demand and therefore price/wages. Definitely, stickiness works both ways. We've all probably encountered situations where someone's made themselves virtually unfireable because no one can do the things they can. I think generally people characterize that as some kind of selfishness or at least a labor antipattern, but I tend to view it as a rational response to a lack of financial stability: if your employer can completely destabilize you financially, it's pretty rational to take drastic steps to guard against that. Suffice to say it's complicated; far more complicated than the supply/demand curves charts you get in econ 101. --- I'll add that my prescription generally is: - Enshrine the right to organize - Require equal profit sharing across all employees - Require significant worker representation on corporate boards - Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g. if everyone makes $1m then 0 tax. If one person makes $100k and 99 others make $1, insane super tax them down to $100 (include tricky stuff like bonuses or whatever) - Heavily tax nationally high salaries with a progressive income tax - Heavily punish tax dodging - Set the minimum wage to a living wage and pin it to the CPI - Abolish "right to work"

fastball 6y ago
Interested to see how quickly you can completely destroy productivity and an economy with your policies. It just sounds like communism with extra steps.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Eh, it's really just Germany+, and they're a pretty productive country. For example, profit sharing is "stock compensation" rephrased and not terribly uncommon [1]. Some of the most productive companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon pay with stock. [1]: http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2409883.pdf http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2409883.pdf
  - fastball 6y ago
    It very much does not sound like Germany+. > Enshrine the right to organize As in with a constitutional amendment? Because the NRLA already guarantees this. > Require equal profit sharing across all employees Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Require significant worker representation on corporate boards Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g. if everyone makes $1m then 0 tax. If one person makes $100k and 99 others make $1, insane super tax them down to $100 (include tricky stuff like bonuses or whatever) Germany doesn't do this and neither should the US. > Heavily tax nationally high salaries with a progressive income tax. The US already does this, as the US does not have a flat tax rate for income tax. > Heavily punish tax dodging Addressing symptoms not causes. Reduce tax avoidance by simplifying the tax code. It's that simple. > Set the minimum wage to a living wage and pin it to the CPI Probably a good idea. > Abolish "right to work" Terrible idea.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      I don't know how to say this without sounding super condescending but, if you want to have a discussion, please contribute to it in a meaningful way. You aren't asking questions, citing sources, or even making good new points. Beyond that, you're really uninformed. Here's an example where you could have done even a little token searching; the title of this article is "Workers on Corporate Boards? Germany’s Had Them for Decades" [1]. Another example is when you write: > Addressing symptoms not causes. Reduce tax avoidance by simplifying the tax code. It's that simple. It truly is not that simple. There's a reason tax codes are complicated and broadly speaking, it's that you have to choose winners and losers to simplify them and that's politically and policy-wise very, very difficult. I'm sure you'd like to dispute that, but the way you'll dispute it is with normative, opaque statements like "it's that simple" or "terrible idea" which will take you 8 minutes. The way I'll engage is by searching the internet and citing a post, and asking good questions to keep the conversation going. That will take an hour. I'm not gonna do that, and I think this breakdown makes it clear why. I think you should keep in mind what you're asking of people you're having a discussion with, either implicitly or explicitly, and how your responses indicate what you're expecting to get out of a discussion. From where I sit, you're not looking to learn anything or to inform me of something, you're looking to win an argument. Sometimes that's productive but it's surprisingly rare, and besides that, I'm not interested. I haven't learned anything from you over the 3-4 threads you've chased me down on, but I do feel a little worse about humanity, and I get enough of that already. And overall, I'd urge you to take a moment to consider the damage you do by logging onto public forums and spreading your ill-informed, normative opinions around. It greatly reduces the signal to noise ratio, and because it takes a lot of time to respond to things like this, it effectively DoS's productive conversations. I love a good internet argument as much as the next mega-arrogant software engineer but, we need to keep in mind the effect that has. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-boards.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo...