4 ms·

> But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair?

> But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair? You define what's fair based on what information you have. If new information reveals that trade was not only unfair but a blatant rip off you are within your rights to feel something about it. Still, I think one should accept the past trade. But there's no reason for that, combined to the new information to guarantee a continuous relation. In other words, renegotiation based on new information that substantially change the deal is moral.

faeyanpiraat 5y ago
You have the right to feel anything about anything for any reason. Whether you can renegotiate or not is not based on your feelings or morals, but how good you are at power games.
- hellow0rldz 5y ago
  This a very one linear way of looking at the world. Sure, it might be about "power games" but feelings do matter and morals too and how one feels about it does give you the extra energy and drive to succeed at a (re)negotiation. So... how can one ignore all that? The original debate was if it's unfair. I think taking advantage too much during an initial negotiation is unfair but since the other side did agree it is a "fair" trade for the other party (based on the partial info they had). Once extra information is revealed, the trade is not fair in retrospect. But new information should only apply to future trades: as such, negotiating or quitting is moral. You might be sub-estimating how good people are at power games. Quitting out of spite is know to happen so people are willing to take a loss due to unfairness. Assuming rationality and ignore feelings and morals while focusing only on the technicality of "power games" is super simplistic.
  - twodave 5y ago
    This isn’t really the situation GP was talking about. The company offered early employees stock. At some point obviously they have to draw the line and stop doing this. GP felt they were ripped off only after learning not that they missed the boat, but how close they were to being on it. The company wasn’t unfair to them, especially since GP agreed to a certain wage and the company was willing to pay that wage.

faeyanpiraat 5y ago

You have the right to feel anything about anything for any reason. Whether you can renegotiate or not is not based on your feelings or morals, but how good you are at power games.

hellow0rldz 5y ago
This a very one linear way of looking at the world. Sure, it might be about "power games" but feelings do matter and morals too and how one feels about it does give you the extra energy and drive to succeed at a (re)negotiation. So... how can one ignore all that? The original debate was if it's unfair. I think taking advantage too much during an initial negotiation is unfair but since the other side did agree it is a "fair" trade for the other party (based on the partial info they had). Once extra information is revealed, the trade is not fair in retrospect. But new information should only apply to future trades: as such, negotiating or quitting is moral. You might be sub-estimating how good people are at power games. Quitting out of spite is know to happen so people are willing to take a loss due to unfairness. Assuming rationality and ignore feelings and morals while focusing only on the technicality of "power games" is super simplistic.
- twodave 5y ago
  This isn’t really the situation GP was talking about. The company offered early employees stock. At some point obviously they have to draw the line and stop doing this. GP felt they were ripped off only after learning not that they missed the boat, but how close they were to being on it. The company wasn’t unfair to them, especially since GP agreed to a certain wage and the company was willing to pay that wage.