4 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 initi
by 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 agoSociety 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 agoThe 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 agoCreating those decent conditions costs money, implying in effect a higher reward, even if not in salary form.