5 ms·

We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initial

by nickpp 6y ago

We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.

cratermoon 6y ago
> competition between employees Ah yes, the invocation of the Free Market Fairy https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
AlexandrB 6y ago
> Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.
- nickpp 6y ago
  Most fields where the added value is equivalent to that of a (basically) robot and where the labor pool is more than "any able body" and thus the supply side is ridiculously unlimited. Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.
EliRivers 6y ago
today's situation favours the employee in most fields I guess employees are choosing to let rich people take all the wealth they generate, then. How very generous of employees. I guess what I'm basically saying is that the evidence indicates that what you just said is bullshit.
- nickpp 6y ago
  I guess am not aware of any evidence of "rich people take all the wealth". I know there are organisational structures in which all kinds of people cooperate to create wealth which is then distributed along to clearly agreed and understood rules to funders, investors and workers. They are called companies and all participants are adult, informed and consenting.
  - EliRivers 6y ago
    Look it up. Over the last fifty years in the US, productivity gains have gone to the rich. Employee wages have stagnated; the extra wealth they create goes to the rich. This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. It's pretty widely known. Your assertion that employees have the power would suggest that employees are choosing to give these gains to the rich. That's just plain nonsense. All those people making minimum wage at Walmart; do they really look to you like they're in the driving seat? Not aware of any evidence? You don't have to agree with Piketti to be aware of him; to be unaware of his work is to be wilfully ignorant. Best selling economist of the last decade? Enormously widely sold? Discussed in almost every economic forum? If you are genuinely unaware of any of the work on the subject (even those who vehemently disagree are still aware of it), then you are phenomenally ignorant in the field and should probably just not say anything.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      No, it didn't go to "the rich". The generated wealth went to funders, investors and employees with stocks. That made some of them rich. But today anybody can own stock in companies so I guess everybody had the opportunity to enjoy those gains.
      - EliRivers 6y ago
        I told you to look it up, and you didn't even bother. You're so convinced that your own infallible logic is all you need. You don't need reality. You don't need evidence. I guess this sort of thing is all just made up: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi... Why do you even bother coming to the internet if you already know everything? I bet, I bet you think of yourself as hyper-rational. That you don't have biases, you're rational. That you can work things out from first principles and if reality disagrees, reality is wrong. I bet you have some fantasy about the "free market" and that by definition everything that happens in it is right and fair. I do note that your argument has switched right round. Suddenly you realise you were wrong and that employees don't actually have the upper hand? Do you think people don't notice when you backtrack and change your argument mid-way through?
andyjohnson0 6y ago
> We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.
- nickpp 6y ago
  Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both.
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    The term "low-skilled" was just invented by economists to justify low wages. I challenge you to spend a day doing something you consider low-skilled next to someone who has spent years in the job and at the end of the day compare your results. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y
  - andyjohnson0 6y ago
    > Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both. I didn't say any of that. I was commenting on the assertion that "today's situation favours the employee in most fields". Which is demonstrably untrue for many people. And I was also implicitly asserting that society should create the conditions for all workers to be treated decently, whether or not they receive a high salary.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      Creating those decent conditions costs money, implying in effect a higher reward, even if not in salary form.

by nickpp 6y ago

cratermoon 6y ago

> competition between employees Ah yes, the invocation of the Free Market Fairy https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/

AlexandrB 6y ago

> Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.

nickpp 6y ago
Most fields where the added value is equivalent to that of a (basically) robot and where the labor pool is more than "any able body" and thus the supply side is ridiculously unlimited. Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.

EliRivers 6y ago

today's situation favours the employee in most fields I guess employees are choosing to let rich people take all the wealth they generate, then. How very generous of employees. I guess what I'm basically saying is that the evidence indicates that what you just said is bullshit.

nickpp 6y ago
I guess am not aware of any evidence of "rich people take all the wealth". I know there are organisational structures in which all kinds of people cooperate to create wealth which is then distributed along to clearly agreed and understood rules to funders, investors and workers. They are called companies and all participants are adult, informed and consenting.
- EliRivers 6y ago
  Look it up. Over the last fifty years in the US, productivity gains have gone to the rich. Employee wages have stagnated; the extra wealth they create goes to the rich. This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. It's pretty widely known. Your assertion that employees have the power would suggest that employees are choosing to give these gains to the rich. That's just plain nonsense. All those people making minimum wage at Walmart; do they really look to you like they're in the driving seat? Not aware of any evidence? You don't have to agree with Piketti to be aware of him; to be unaware of his work is to be wilfully ignorant. Best selling economist of the last decade? Enormously widely sold? Discussed in almost every economic forum? If you are genuinely unaware of any of the work on the subject (even those who vehemently disagree are still aware of it), then you are phenomenally ignorant in the field and should probably just not say anything.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    No, it didn't go to "the rich". The generated wealth went to funders, investors and employees with stocks. That made some of them rich. But today anybody can own stock in companies so I guess everybody had the opportunity to enjoy those gains.
    - EliRivers 6y ago
      I told you to look it up, and you didn't even bother. You're so convinced that your own infallible logic is all you need. You don't need reality. You don't need evidence. I guess this sort of thing is all just made up: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi... Why do you even bother coming to the internet if you already know everything? I bet, I bet you think of yourself as hyper-rational. That you don't have biases, you're rational. That you can work things out from first principles and if reality disagrees, reality is wrong. I bet you have some fantasy about the "free market" and that by definition everything that happens in it is right and fair. I do note that your argument has switched right round. Suddenly you realise you were wrong and that employees don't actually have the upper hand? Do you think people don't notice when you backtrack and change your argument mid-way through?

andyjohnson0 6y ago

> We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.

nickpp 6y ago
Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both.
- cratermoon 6y ago
  The term "low-skilled" was just invented by economists to justify low wages. I challenge you to spend a day doing something you consider low-skilled next to someone who has spent years in the job and at the end of the day compare your results. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y
- andyjohnson0 6y ago
  > Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both. I didn't say any of that. I was commenting on the assertion that "today's situation favours the employee in most fields". Which is demonstrably untrue for many people. And I was also implicitly asserting that society should create the conditions for all workers to be treated decently, whether or not they receive a high salary.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Creating those decent conditions costs money, implying in effect a higher reward, even if not in salary form.