5 ms·

We don't allow businesses to profit "wildly" because we don't want to pay people more. We allow businesses to profit because it isn't fair to make someone pay X

We don't allow businesses to profit "wildly" because we don't want to pay people more. We allow businesses to profit because it isn't fair to make someone pay X when someone else is very happy to get paid a fraction of X. It's about justice and fairness. I mean I'd love to get paid Silicon Valley programmer wages, but I'm perfectly happy to program for a fraction of those wages. And it would be an injustice for me to be unemployed because my employer was forced to pay Silicon Valley wages. And what are "wild" profits? Because most companies are making far less than 8% of revenue as profits.

gchamonlive 6y ago
I think I understand where you come from. A job is better than no job. But I don't think that is necessarily true nor that things would follow suit if we think like that. I mean, we employ much more people today than in the industrial revolution. Yet, people are paid significantly more, child labor has been abolished, all that working 8-9h a day instead of 14-18 which was common. We are not in a cooperative environment, when it comes to salaries. Companies are legally obligated to show gains to their investors, and if they can cut salaries and keep the profits they will do so. We are in a competitive game against employer, where the balance is found when both parties compromise. But make no mistake, as soon as the working force stop fight for better working conditions, it will not stay the same, only degrade. Don't read that in a personal way. We are in no way personally against the employer, but the employer as an authority figure. The balance is not found through cooperation but rather through clash of professional interests.
pessimizer 6y ago
> And it would be an injustice for me to be unemployed because my employer was forced to pay Silicon Valley wages. No, it would be good, because it would mean that they were more efficiently utilizing their current workforce, probably through technological advancement that should ultimately benefit the entire industry. Technology is almost entirely driven through higher labor costs and dictating better conditions for employees. The benefits of technology improvements are also not zero-sum (equal to their costs to develop or maintain), and are redistributed through those higher salaries and through taxes. If you end up unemployed at that wage level because your skill level has not made the new cut, there are other things you can do. Wanting to program but not being able to find somebody who wants you to program at the minimum wage is no more tragic than wanting to program but not being able to pay your rent doing it.
- merpnderp 6y ago
  So let me get this straight. You think it is justice for me to be unemployed because my employer can’t afford to pay me $180k/year to write internal software because they will magically use technology to do without me? More likely they would go without, because if there was magic to replace me they’d already be doing it.
- IQunder130 6y ago
  How is it "more efficient" when individuals who can do the job are not allowed to do the job because of some arbitrary price control floor? Literally nobody in society benefits from this arrangement besides a tiny class of programmers who can actually command that kind of salary. What you are recommending is the classic kind of supply constriction rent-seeking behaviour that used to ensure economic growth was utterly impossible in most economies.

gchamonlive 6y ago

I think I understand where you come from. A job is better than no job. But I don't think that is necessarily true nor that things would follow suit if we think like that. I mean, we employ much more people today than in the industrial revolution. Yet, people are paid significantly more, child labor has been abolished, all that working 8-9h a day instead of 14-18 which was common. We are not in a cooperative environment, when it comes to salaries. Companies are legally obligated to show gains to their investors, and if they can cut salaries and keep the profits they will do so. We are in a competitive game against employer, where the balance is found when both parties compromise. But make no mistake, as soon as the working force stop fight for better working conditions, it will not stay the same, only degrade. Don't read that in a personal way. We are in no way personally against the employer, but the employer as an authority figure. The balance is not found through cooperation but rather through clash of professional interests.

pessimizer 6y ago

> And it would be an injustice for me to be unemployed because my employer was forced to pay Silicon Valley wages. No, it would be good, because it would mean that they were more efficiently utilizing their current workforce, probably through technological advancement that should ultimately benefit the entire industry. Technology is almost entirely driven through higher labor costs and dictating better conditions for employees. The benefits of technology improvements are also not zero-sum (equal to their costs to develop or maintain), and are redistributed through those higher salaries and through taxes. If you end up unemployed at that wage level because your skill level has not made the new cut, there are other things you can do. Wanting to program but not being able to find somebody who wants you to program at the minimum wage is no more tragic than wanting to program but not being able to pay your rent doing it.

merpnderp 6y ago
So let me get this straight. You think it is justice for me to be unemployed because my employer can’t afford to pay me $180k/year to write internal software because they will magically use technology to do without me? More likely they would go without, because if there was magic to replace me they’d already be doing it.
IQunder130 6y ago
How is it "more efficient" when individuals who can do the job are not allowed to do the job because of some arbitrary price control floor? Literally nobody in society benefits from this arrangement besides a tiny class of programmers who can actually command that kind of salary. What you are recommending is the classic kind of supply constriction rent-seeking behaviour that used to ensure economic growth was utterly impossible in most economies.