3 ms·

"The argument for a pay cut" ... Another argument is that if tech paid everyone the same, everywhere, it would greatly exacerbate income equality issues in a l

"The argument for a pay cut" ... Another argument is that if tech paid everyone the same, everywhere, it would greatly exacerbate income equality issues in a lot of places. Tech is certainly not altruistic, as you point out, and generally wants to pay market rate rather than output rate or whatever. But it doesn't make less true that it would worsen a whole bunch of social problems by paying people the same everywhere.

RNCTX 5y ago
Another another argument would be that income inequality is not the fault of employees but rather the fault of management, whether politically, culturally, socially or all of the above.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
That is a ludicrous argument. The whole income/wealth inequality is not about working people earning more, it is about capital owners earning vastly more due to various reasons. Some businesses do earn more due to ease of access to additional capital, and hence can pay employees more, but the root of the income/wealth divide is certainly not employers paying employees more. It is certain employers (capital owners) getting disproportionately more in the first place. Tech employees are simply in sufficiently high demand relative to supply that they can demand a piece of the pie. But there is no point in trying to address a problem by addressing its symptoms rather than causes. Specifically, in this case, paying Alphabet employees less in the name of helping the income/wealth divide only helps other owners of Alphabet stock be even richer.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  "That is a ludicrous argument. The whole income/wealth inequality is not about working people earning more, it is about capital owners earning vastly more due to various reasons." Uh, what? No, it's about where the money is concentrated and how that concentration changes (or doesn't) over time. It's true that other forms of earning have a bad effect on this, but i'n not sure why that's particularly relevant. To whit - tech folks, paid in SF dollars, but living in various cheap ares of the US, are in the 0.1-1%. Easily. The fact that they got there by being paid rather than some other form of wealth accumulation, is irrelevant. They will stay there just the same as anyone else. Why would it be any less unequal because someone is starting in the 1% by getting paid a ridiculous salary on a regular basis rather than earning money through the stock market on a regular basis? Why would one not transform into the other? It's rhetorical of course, since that is what will happen. In fact, it's what the tech folks moving want to happen. They want more money to buy a large house and invest and retire and be richer than they can be in SF. " But there is no point in trying to address a problem by addressing its symptoms rather than causes." You haven't, at all, explained why putting more people in a seriously unequal position makes anything better, or why it's "pointless" to avoid doing that. It's not pointless. It avoids more inequality. Does it avoid all of it? Of course not. But again, the other way demonstrably makes things worse. Do you have a concrete argument as to why it makes sense to keep doing that? Because your entire comment feels precisely like the rest of the discussions around this - "it's not my fault, i shouldn't earn less money, it's the other people who are at fault. Particularly the ones who have 10x/100x what i do".
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > paid in SF dollars There are US dollars, there is no purpose in framing something as SF dollars. > You haven't, at all, explained why putting more people in a seriously unequal position makes anything better, or why it's "pointless" to avoid doing that. They are not being put in a more unequal position. An economy with money flowing in is helping lift people out of an unequal position. Maybe not all at the same time, but if anything, it is helping in the long run, not hurting. > It's not pointless. It avoids more inequality. Does it avoid all of it? Of course not. But again, the other way demonstrably makes things worse. The other way is money staying with the company? I do not understand how paying employees less and letting the employer and hence shareholders keep more could be better than spreading wealth to more employees in more places of the goal is to reduce income/wealth inequality. The other way is some places continuing to stay poor and some places continuing to stay rich. > Do you have a concrete argument as to why it makes sense to keep doing that? > Because your entire comment feels precisely like the rest of the discussions around this - "it's not my fault, i shouldn't earn less money, it's the other people who are at fault. Particularly the ones who have 10x/100x what i do". The argument is that you do not want to disincentivize people working to earn money. That is a good thing for society. Go ahead and increase marginal income tax rate/implement wealth taxes, but there is no reason to regulate prices between market participants. If tech ends up paying more, then more people will be attracted to tech, and supply of labor will increase, thereby reducing the inequality.

RNCTX 5y ago

Another another argument would be that income inequality is not the fault of employees but rather the fault of management, whether politically, culturally, socially or all of the above.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

That is a ludicrous argument. The whole income/wealth inequality is not about working people earning more, it is about capital owners earning vastly more due to various reasons. Some businesses do earn more due to ease of access to additional capital, and hence can pay employees more, but the root of the income/wealth divide is certainly not employers paying employees more. It is certain employers (capital owners) getting disproportionately more in the first place. Tech employees are simply in sufficiently high demand relative to supply that they can demand a piece of the pie. But there is no point in trying to address a problem by addressing its symptoms rather than causes. Specifically, in this case, paying Alphabet employees less in the name of helping the income/wealth divide only helps other owners of Alphabet stock be even richer.

DannyBee 5y ago
"That is a ludicrous argument. The whole income/wealth inequality is not about working people earning more, it is about capital owners earning vastly more due to various reasons." Uh, what? No, it's about where the money is concentrated and how that concentration changes (or doesn't) over time. It's true that other forms of earning have a bad effect on this, but i'n not sure why that's particularly relevant. To whit - tech folks, paid in SF dollars, but living in various cheap ares of the US, are in the 0.1-1%. Easily. The fact that they got there by being paid rather than some other form of wealth accumulation, is irrelevant. They will stay there just the same as anyone else. Why would it be any less unequal because someone is starting in the 1% by getting paid a ridiculous salary on a regular basis rather than earning money through the stock market on a regular basis? Why would one not transform into the other? It's rhetorical of course, since that is what will happen. In fact, it's what the tech folks moving want to happen. They want more money to buy a large house and invest and retire and be richer than they can be in SF. " But there is no point in trying to address a problem by addressing its symptoms rather than causes." You haven't, at all, explained why putting more people in a seriously unequal position makes anything better, or why it's "pointless" to avoid doing that. It's not pointless. It avoids more inequality. Does it avoid all of it? Of course not. But again, the other way demonstrably makes things worse. Do you have a concrete argument as to why it makes sense to keep doing that? Because your entire comment feels precisely like the rest of the discussions around this - "it's not my fault, i shouldn't earn less money, it's the other people who are at fault. Particularly the ones who have 10x/100x what i do".
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > paid in SF dollars There are US dollars, there is no purpose in framing something as SF dollars. > You haven't, at all, explained why putting more people in a seriously unequal position makes anything better, or why it's "pointless" to avoid doing that. They are not being put in a more unequal position. An economy with money flowing in is helping lift people out of an unequal position. Maybe not all at the same time, but if anything, it is helping in the long run, not hurting. > It's not pointless. It avoids more inequality. Does it avoid all of it? Of course not. But again, the other way demonstrably makes things worse. The other way is money staying with the company? I do not understand how paying employees less and letting the employer and hence shareholders keep more could be better than spreading wealth to more employees in more places of the goal is to reduce income/wealth inequality. The other way is some places continuing to stay poor and some places continuing to stay rich. > Do you have a concrete argument as to why it makes sense to keep doing that? > Because your entire comment feels precisely like the rest of the discussions around this - "it's not my fault, i shouldn't earn less money, it's the other people who are at fault. Particularly the ones who have 10x/100x what i do". The argument is that you do not want to disincentivize people working to earn money. That is a good thing for society. Go ahead and increase marginal income tax rate/implement wealth taxes, but there is no reason to regulate prices between market participants. If tech ends up paying more, then more people will be attracted to tech, and supply of labor will increase, thereby reducing the inequality.