3 ms·

Including the profit your employer retains -- employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor. That’s not true “necessarily” unless you assume all employers are sustainable, in idealized competitive markets, and that all of their inputs are also purchased in idealized competitive markets such that they don’t have monopsony savings they can spend on surplus wages without impacting sustainability. Obviously, even with idealized market assumptions, one reason an firms fail is paying more total for inputs than the value they produce, and lots of firms fail.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  Ok, that's fair, I was painting with a broad brush. I acknowledge that yes, employers can pay employees more than the value they bring in, but it's likely that doing so isn't sustainable long term. And I dodged entirely around worker coops and other arrangements where the excess value is distributed back to employees.
seiferteric 5y ago
That part is fine and understood when you take a job with a for profit company. I just don't like it when employers think that are doing you some sort of favor.
robocat 5y ago
> employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor. Untrue. Employers aim for that but they often fail. The Credit Suisse employees that lost $5 billion due to Archegos were overpaid. Alternatively if I am the only person that can do a particular necessary job for a business, I should be able to reap the majority of the profits due to my monopoly. Finally, for some professional jobs productivity is hard to measure, yet you may employ many people because in aggregate they make a profit. At an individual level, the profit margin can vary from negative to positive.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  > Untrue. Employers aim for that but they often fail. > The Credit Suisse employees that lost $5 billion due to Archegos were overpaid. Edge cases. Most people work for businesses that make a profit, and those businesses' profit comes from the difference between the value its employees create and the salary it pays to them (at least in aggregate). > Finally, for some professional jobs productivity is hard to measure, yet you may employ many people because in aggregate they make a profit. At an individual level, the profit margin can vary from negative to positive. You're confusing what is meant by the "value of your labor". Of course what GP meant is "the value of your labor as seen by your employer". If everyone could create the same value they create in an organized business while working solo then nobody would work a job as it would just be losing money.
rafd 5y ago
This only follows under the assumption that a company only derives value from the labour of its employees, ie. “there is only labour”. But there are many other kinds of assets - cash, brand, real estate, natural renewable resources etc. One could have a zero labour company that is profitable.

> employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor. That’s not true “necessarily” unless you assume all employers are sustainable, in idealized competitive markets, and that all of their inputs are also purchased in idealized competitive markets such that they don’t have monopsony savings they can spend on surplus wages without impacting sustainability. Obviously, even with idealized market assumptions, one reason an firms fail is paying more total for inputs than the value they produce, and lots of firms fail.

Pfhreak 5y ago
Ok, that's fair, I was painting with a broad brush. I acknowledge that yes, employers can pay employees more than the value they bring in, but it's likely that doing so isn't sustainable long term. And I dodged entirely around worker coops and other arrangements where the excess value is distributed back to employees.

seiferteric 5y ago

That part is fine and understood when you take a job with a for profit company. I just don't like it when employers think that are doing you some sort of favor.

robocat 5y ago

> employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor. Untrue. Employers aim for that but they often fail. The Credit Suisse employees that lost $5 billion due to Archegos were overpaid. Alternatively if I am the only person that can do a particular necessary job for a business, I should be able to reap the majority of the profits due to my monopoly. Finally, for some professional jobs productivity is hard to measure, yet you may employ many people because in aggregate they make a profit. At an individual level, the profit margin can vary from negative to positive.

cmeacham98 5y ago
> Untrue. Employers aim for that but they often fail. > The Credit Suisse employees that lost $5 billion due to Archegos were overpaid. Edge cases. Most people work for businesses that make a profit, and those businesses' profit comes from the difference between the value its employees create and the salary it pays to them (at least in aggregate). > Finally, for some professional jobs productivity is hard to measure, yet you may employ many people because in aggregate they make a profit. At an individual level, the profit margin can vary from negative to positive. You're confusing what is meant by the "value of your labor". Of course what GP meant is "the value of your labor as seen by your employer". If everyone could create the same value they create in an organized business while working solo then nobody would work a job as it would just be losing money.

rafd 5y ago

This only follows under the assumption that a company only derives value from the labour of its employees, ie. “there is only labour”. But there are many other kinds of assets - cash, brand, real estate, natural renewable resources etc. One could have a zero labour company that is profitable.