4 ms·

FAANG companies also underpay their workers. It can simultaneously be the case that they pay their workers best in class wages AND those wages are less than the

FAANG companies also underpay their workers. It can simultaneously be the case that they pay their workers best in class wages AND those wages are less than the workers deserve. Apple has immense cash reserves built from the labor of their employees. That is essentially the difference between what value those employees generated for Apple and what they were paid. More of it should go out to the employees, and we should push to make the wages of workers at any company be higher percentage of the value they generate for that company.

comp_throw7 5y ago
What does it mean that they underpay their workers, except that they pay them a smaller percentage of the economic value produced by their labor than you think they should? Is that just a deontological claim? Because I imagine "my moral system says software engineers should be paid more, no, don't worry how much more, I'll tell you when to stop" is not very convincing as an argument.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  I'm of the opinion that workers should retain 100% of the value they produce. Not for deontological reasons, but because I hold the belief that the outcomes of paying the "leaf nodes" in an organization maximally results in a healthier economy, a healthier population, and more democratic workplaces. This is not limited to software engineers. I believe the same is true for any worker, from fast food to manufacturing to engineers.
  - comp_throw7 5y ago
    How do you imagine this working, in practice? Do you want to force companies to have 0 cash holdings at all time? That seems like it might lead to some, ah, undesirable fragility.
- oblio 5y ago
  > What does it mean that they underpay their workers, except that they pay them a smaller percentage of the economic value produced by their labor than you think they should? That's easy to measure. These companies have a per-employee revenue which is easily a 5-10x multiple of average total compensation paid per employee, and in some cases it's also much less than the per-employee profit. So they could pay a ton more while also making a healthy profit. Apple is the worst example of this.
Thorrez 5y ago
How much workers deserve is based on profitability of the company they work at? Do workers who are equally talented and hardworking but work for a failing company deserve less?
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  That's a complicated question. My answer is probably they will get paid less. They are producing something for which there is less demand. However, in today's economy the situation you describe would have the workers being paid less and the owner trying to keep as much of the surplus value from their labor as possible. So, even in a failing company, I'd expect the wages to increase for workers if they received 100% of their value.
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    I guess if all the profits go to the workers, who provides the investment necessary to start the company in the first place? You could say it's the employees, but then we get in the weird situation of people having to pay to get a job.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    >My answer is probably they will get paid less. They are producing something for which there is less demand. and this is how gentrification works. Not because a company starts to pay less, but because other companies pay more and make just the act of existing close to those companies (even if you were in fact there first) more expensive. Your solution is great for tech workers, but ultimately means a large swath of society would suffer.
- Siira 5y ago
  It’s unworkable at a market level, but ideally, yes. Working for failing companies means you’re just wasting your time and not contributing to the society.

comp_throw7 5y ago

What does it mean that they underpay their workers, except that they pay them a smaller percentage of the economic value produced by their labor than you think they should? Is that just a deontological claim? Because I imagine "my moral system says software engineers should be paid more, no, don't worry how much more, I'll tell you when to stop" is not very convincing as an argument.

Pfhreak 5y ago
I'm of the opinion that workers should retain 100% of the value they produce. Not for deontological reasons, but because I hold the belief that the outcomes of paying the "leaf nodes" in an organization maximally results in a healthier economy, a healthier population, and more democratic workplaces. This is not limited to software engineers. I believe the same is true for any worker, from fast food to manufacturing to engineers.
- comp_throw7 5y ago
  How do you imagine this working, in practice? Do you want to force companies to have 0 cash holdings at all time? That seems like it might lead to some, ah, undesirable fragility.
oblio 5y ago
> What does it mean that they underpay their workers, except that they pay them a smaller percentage of the economic value produced by their labor than you think they should? That's easy to measure. These companies have a per-employee revenue which is easily a 5-10x multiple of average total compensation paid per employee, and in some cases it's also much less than the per-employee profit. So they could pay a ton more while also making a healthy profit. Apple is the worst example of this.

Thorrez 5y ago

How much workers deserve is based on profitability of the company they work at? Do workers who are equally talented and hardworking but work for a failing company deserve less?

Pfhreak 5y ago
That's a complicated question. My answer is probably they will get paid less. They are producing something for which there is less demand. However, in today's economy the situation you describe would have the workers being paid less and the owner trying to keep as much of the surplus value from their labor as possible. So, even in a failing company, I'd expect the wages to increase for workers if they received 100% of their value.
- Thorrez 5y ago
  I guess if all the profits go to the workers, who provides the investment necessary to start the company in the first place? You could say it's the employees, but then we get in the weird situation of people having to pay to get a job.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  >My answer is probably they will get paid less. They are producing something for which there is less demand. and this is how gentrification works. Not because a company starts to pay less, but because other companies pay more and make just the act of existing close to those companies (even if you were in fact there first) more expensive. Your solution is great for tech workers, but ultimately means a large swath of society would suffer.
Siira 5y ago
It’s unworkable at a market level, but ideally, yes. Working for failing companies means you’re just wasting your time and not contributing to the society.