5 ms·

More accurately: employers are forbidden by many different mechanisms to join forces, are actively watched to prevent the formation of monopolies, and punished

More accurately: employers are forbidden by many different mechanisms to join forces, are actively watched to prevent the formation of monopolies, and punished when they do, and are often restrained in many other ways by regulations. Labor is not only allowed to collaborate in order to form monopolies and cartels, but is also legally protected when it does. Please do explain how this disparity is in favor of employers.

couchand 5y ago
It is in spite of these differences that employers have great leverage, not because of them. It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers. It's plain to see that a capitalist is far better positioned to negotiate a labor contract than someone trying to feed their family. Please explain how history has repeatedly shown capitalists more ready, willing, and able to exploit their position. See the recent labor price-fixing scandal in the tech industry for one relevant example.
- native_samples 5y ago
  "It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers" It is not plain to me. Employers are just people too, but if they try to conspire with other employers they must do so in secret lest their conspiracy be discovered and punished. Your example of wage fixing in the valley shows this in action perfectly. Yet if employees want to do the exact same thing for the exact same ends (manipulating labor prices), they are not only allowed to do it in the open, conferring great advantages, but they are also protected by the government from any sort of retaliation. They may even be allowed to use company property to organize with! It's pretty clear therefore that labor has the advantage here. "Please explain how history has repeatedly shown capitalists more ready, willing, and able to exploit their position" It hasn't. That's a Marxist trope, not an accurate reading of history. History is full of businesses going bankrupt or being outcompeted because of rising labor costs, or indeed, being exploited by unions. The history of Detroit is a good example of that, or the entire British auto industry. Alternatively, look at all the software companies struggling to compete with FANG-boosted wages. It's hardly an environment where capitalists are exploiting the workers.
  - couchand 5y ago
    Coordination problems go up in complexity by the square of the number of actors. Since employers meaningfully participating in the labor market average many more than one employee, and employees average somewhere around one employer, employers start at a very significant structural advantage, particularly large employers. The scant legal protections you mention serve to help equalize this disparity, but it is laughable to suggest that they somehow put employees out ahead. The history of labor is full of people killed and injured by police and other thugs-for-hire by capitalists who couldn't be bothered to care about anything but their profits.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      "Coordination problems go up in complexity by the square of the number of actors" Yeah? Then how comes unions are often bigger than companies, sometimes containing entire industries? This "fact" sounds made up. People are not random graphs. As for violence, the history of unionism is full of union thugs beating up scabs, management, and anyone else who got in their way. Anyone can play the game of "long ago some people were violent". It's not relevant to today's situation.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
The vast majority of employers have joined forces. Sole proprietorships are the only exception. Meanwhile, 90% of workers are completely on their own.

couchand 5y ago

It is in spite of these differences that employers have great leverage, not because of them. It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers. It's plain to see that a capitalist is far better positioned to negotiate a labor contract than someone trying to feed their family. Please explain how history has repeatedly shown capitalists more ready, willing, and able to exploit their position. See the recent labor price-fixing scandal in the tech industry for one relevant example.

native_samples 5y ago
"It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers" It is not plain to me. Employers are just people too, but if they try to conspire with other employers they must do so in secret lest their conspiracy be discovered and punished. Your example of wage fixing in the valley shows this in action perfectly. Yet if employees want to do the exact same thing for the exact same ends (manipulating labor prices), they are not only allowed to do it in the open, conferring great advantages, but they are also protected by the government from any sort of retaliation. They may even be allowed to use company property to organize with! It's pretty clear therefore that labor has the advantage here. "Please explain how history has repeatedly shown capitalists more ready, willing, and able to exploit their position" It hasn't. That's a Marxist trope, not an accurate reading of history. History is full of businesses going bankrupt or being outcompeted because of rising labor costs, or indeed, being exploited by unions. The history of Detroit is a good example of that, or the entire British auto industry. Alternatively, look at all the software companies struggling to compete with FANG-boosted wages. It's hardly an environment where capitalists are exploiting the workers.
- couchand 5y ago
  Coordination problems go up in complexity by the square of the number of actors. Since employers meaningfully participating in the labor market average many more than one employee, and employees average somewhere around one employer, employers start at a very significant structural advantage, particularly large employers. The scant legal protections you mention serve to help equalize this disparity, but it is laughable to suggest that they somehow put employees out ahead. The history of labor is full of people killed and injured by police and other thugs-for-hire by capitalists who couldn't be bothered to care about anything but their profits.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    "Coordination problems go up in complexity by the square of the number of actors" Yeah? Then how comes unions are often bigger than companies, sometimes containing entire industries? This "fact" sounds made up. People are not random graphs. As for violence, the history of unionism is full of union thugs beating up scabs, management, and anyone else who got in their way. Anyone can play the game of "long ago some people were violent". It's not relevant to today's situation.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

The vast majority of employers have joined forces. Sole proprietorships are the only exception. Meanwhile, 90% of workers are completely on their own.