9 ms·

>There are a lot of absurdly underpaid people out there. In my observation, this is literally the backbone of capitalism

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Not really. It is simply a consequence of a market lacking price transparency. We have the internet. We have laws protecting employees discussing their pay. There is nothing in capitalism stopping anyone from disclosing their pay and creating a transparent market. And it is happening, albeit slowly (see levels.fyi and glassdoor). CO’s transparency laws also help, and anything to help transparency will assist. The main resistance I sense is actually from people themselves, for various social and emotional reasons.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Well, if you are on the higher end, you probably don't want to share with those on the lower end, simply because 1 of 3 things will happen. 1. They ask for a raise and don’t get it. You lose a team member when they leave. 2. You can’t get a raise because your boss is forced to give your colleague a raise and doesn’t want to have to hand out raises. 3. Your colleague stews and resents you. People say it won’t happen, but I have heard a ton of complaining about how X earns so much and they don’t deserve it from co-workers.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, everyone likes to think they are top 10% (or even above average). That is what I meant by my last sentence.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    I have witnessed number 3 in action. My first programming job introduced pay bands a few years in (it was a young company that grew from small to a few hundred at that point) and word got around about the people who were already earning above the band for their level. The mood around those who were already above their band went from "yeah they're okay devs" to "wtf, those guys aren't nearly good enough" pretty quickly. I'm just happy to be one of those that got a good raise to meet the bottom of my payband and not the other way around.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > 1. They ask for a raise and don’t get it. You lose a team member when they leave. Yes and that should be a lesson to pay the whole team more. > 2. You can’t get a raise because your boss is forced to give your colleague a raise and doesn’t want to have to hand out raises. Your colleague wasn't paid well, asked to get paid better, and got it. Now you're said because you can't continue to get paid more relative to your colleague? Lose your greed and grow some empathy in its place. > 3. Your colleague stews and resents you. People say it won’t happen, but I have heard a ton of complaining about how X earns so much and they don’t deserve it from co-workers. Then work with them to explain how and why you deserve more than your colleagues. Otherwise, they might be right about you not deserving it. You getting what you don't deserve means, by your own logic, that they're not getting what they do deserve.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      > Otherwise, they might be right about you not deserving it. #3 results from a fundamental confusion people have that pay is based on people "deserving" something. Like it's an expression of virtue or your worth as a person or a reward for doing something good. It's not. You're paid based on supply and demand and your negotiating skills, nothing more. It's not a golden star from your teacher that you're a nice boy. It's whatever you were able to convince the company the monetary value of your contribution is worth. That's all. Get over whether someone deserves this or that. I'll solve this once and for all: nobody deserves anything. You're responsible for figuring out how to provide value and capture it.
      - inetknght 5y ago
        I do believe in getting paid what's deserved and what's deserved changes as the market changes. What's unfortunate is that people aren't willing to see the change go downward ever and then also argue that others can't go upward because... well then you yourself "can't" go upward. What's deserved is for people to be compensated fairly. If the company is compensating someone unfairly and can't compensate someone fairly because of then, then that is a definite and clear problem. Whatever your definition of fair is, whether that's "deserving" or "market forces", it's still the same argument.
  - jwmoz 5y ago
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Not really. It is simply a consequence of a market lacking price transparency. With close to perfect information, there is little room to profit, which would put a spoke in the wheel of capitalism.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    What spoke in the wheel? In hypothetical perfect competition there is zero long run economic profit. The whole point of profit motive is that the opportunity for economic profit means there are resources being allocated inefficiently.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I do not think so. See retail and insurance businesses, with their consistent 2% to 6% profit margins. Bigger potential profits merit bigger risk taking. But not all investments have the same risk profile and time horizons.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      Insurance is so far from perfect information though. Maybe perfect information in for an average year is possible, but it is the black swan years that knock you out. Even then, there is no perfect information on clients.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - mypalmike 5y ago
      It's not a matter of thinking so or otherwise. It's a mathematical question of what value each worker added to the product. Other expenses aside, profit is the difference between the value they added and the wage they were paid. You don't get profit without underpaying relative to the value provided by a worker.
      - JackFr 5y ago
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > There is nothing in capitalism stopping anyone from disclosing their pay and creating a transparent market. Is that actually true? Is it possible to verifiably disclose one’s pay? Are you supposed to sign an affidavit or something?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes? Using records such as paystubs, W-2, or 1099. Obviously, they can be falsified, but I presume we are not talking about that. There is also the Norway method of having the government provide it.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      If the idea is for the entire labor market to change significantly due to everyone voluntarily sharing their salary, then we ought to be talking about a mechanism of ensuring honesty, just like an auction (generally) wants to design their auction in such a way that people are honest about their willingness to pay.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Ideally, but you do not need the entire labor market to participate to do it. I am guessing even shining a light on a small, representative set of real time data will be enough to get things moving.
TOGoS 5y ago
> In my observation You win award for understatement[1] of 2021. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Not really. It is simply a consequence of a market lacking price transparency. We have the internet. We have laws protecting employees discussing their pay. There is nothing in capitalism stopping anyone from disclosing their pay and creating a transparent market. And it is happening, albeit slowly (see levels.fyi and glassdoor). CO’s transparency laws also help, and anything to help transparency will assist. The main resistance I sense is actually from people themselves, for various social and emotional reasons.

MattGaiser 5y ago
Well, if you are on the higher end, you probably don't want to share with those on the lower end, simply because 1 of 3 things will happen. 1. They ask for a raise and don’t get it. You lose a team member when they leave. 2. You can’t get a raise because your boss is forced to give your colleague a raise and doesn’t want to have to hand out raises. 3. Your colleague stews and resents you. People say it won’t happen, but I have heard a ton of complaining about how X earns so much and they don’t deserve it from co-workers.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes, everyone likes to think they are top 10% (or even above average). That is what I meant by my last sentence.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  I have witnessed number 3 in action. My first programming job introduced pay bands a few years in (it was a young company that grew from small to a few hundred at that point) and word got around about the people who were already earning above the band for their level. The mood around those who were already above their band went from "yeah they're okay devs" to "wtf, those guys aren't nearly good enough" pretty quickly. I'm just happy to be one of those that got a good raise to meet the bottom of my payband and not the other way around.
- inetknght 5y ago
  > 1. They ask for a raise and don’t get it. You lose a team member when they leave. Yes and that should be a lesson to pay the whole team more. > 2. You can’t get a raise because your boss is forced to give your colleague a raise and doesn’t want to have to hand out raises. Your colleague wasn't paid well, asked to get paid better, and got it. Now you're said because you can't continue to get paid more relative to your colleague? Lose your greed and grow some empathy in its place. > 3. Your colleague stews and resents you. People say it won’t happen, but I have heard a ton of complaining about how X earns so much and they don’t deserve it from co-workers. Then work with them to explain how and why you deserve more than your colleagues. Otherwise, they might be right about you not deserving it. You getting what you don't deserve means, by your own logic, that they're not getting what they do deserve.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    > Otherwise, they might be right about you not deserving it. #3 results from a fundamental confusion people have that pay is based on people "deserving" something. Like it's an expression of virtue or your worth as a person or a reward for doing something good. It's not. You're paid based on supply and demand and your negotiating skills, nothing more. It's not a golden star from your teacher that you're a nice boy. It's whatever you were able to convince the company the monetary value of your contribution is worth. That's all. Get over whether someone deserves this or that. I'll solve this once and for all: nobody deserves anything. You're responsible for figuring out how to provide value and capture it.
    - inetknght 5y ago
      I do believe in getting paid what's deserved and what's deserved changes as the market changes. What's unfortunate is that people aren't willing to see the change go downward ever and then also argue that others can't go upward because... well then you yourself "can't" go upward. What's deserved is for people to be compensated fairly. If the company is compensating someone unfairly and can't compensate someone fairly because of then, then that is a definite and clear problem. Whatever your definition of fair is, whether that's "deserving" or "market forces", it's still the same argument.
- jwmoz 5y ago
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Not really. It is simply a consequence of a market lacking price transparency. With close to perfect information, there is little room to profit, which would put a spoke in the wheel of capitalism.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  What spoke in the wheel? In hypothetical perfect competition there is zero long run economic profit. The whole point of profit motive is that the opportunity for economic profit means there are resources being allocated inefficiently.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I do not think so. See retail and insurance businesses, with their consistent 2% to 6% profit margins. Bigger potential profits merit bigger risk taking. But not all investments have the same risk profile and time horizons.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    Insurance is so far from perfect information though. Maybe perfect information in for an average year is possible, but it is the black swan years that knock you out. Even then, there is no perfect information on clients.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mypalmike 5y ago
    It's not a matter of thinking so or otherwise. It's a mathematical question of what value each worker added to the product. Other expenses aside, profit is the difference between the value they added and the wage they were paid. You don't get profit without underpaying relative to the value provided by a worker.
    - JackFr 5y ago
tshaddox 5y ago
> There is nothing in capitalism stopping anyone from disclosing their pay and creating a transparent market. Is that actually true? Is it possible to verifiably disclose one’s pay? Are you supposed to sign an affidavit or something?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes? Using records such as paystubs, W-2, or 1099. Obviously, they can be falsified, but I presume we are not talking about that. There is also the Norway method of having the government provide it.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    If the idea is for the entire labor market to change significantly due to everyone voluntarily sharing their salary, then we ought to be talking about a mechanism of ensuring honesty, just like an auction (generally) wants to design their auction in such a way that people are honest about their willingness to pay.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Ideally, but you do not need the entire labor market to participate to do it. I am guessing even shining a light on a small, representative set of real time data will be enough to get things moving.

TOGoS 5y ago

> In my observation You win award for understatement[1] of 2021. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value