6 ms·

A lot of businesses simply don't make a profit under reasonable conditions. So managers at those businesses need to be unreasonable by definition.

LadyCailin 4y ago
Then if those businesses shut down because they can’t find people to hire, that should be lauded, not feared.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Reasonable is subjective. I have seen a developer borderline lose their job because they didn’t like the terms and conditions of a library that management wanted to use on the app. Even after management confirmed they are ok with the terms. Sometimes you do just need to accept decisions and move on. Or find a middle ground.
  - nmfisher 4y ago
    Was this Richard Stallman’s first job?
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      Not even that. It was some weird idea that the terms would expose the company to legal risk, despite the legal experts confirming its OK and them having no real financial stake in the company. Some people pick weird hills to die on. They absolutely see management as being evil and unreasonable over this despite anyone else looking at the situation seeing it as normal day to day business.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  Is no job better than bad job?
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    I would say if you have the proper social safety net, then yes. It gives you time to think about innovative new work, rather than shitty wage slave work.
    - dzhiurgis 4y ago
      Proper social net is probably less than 0.1% of worlds population.
dgb23 4y ago
Be careful with that notion. There are more businesses that do make profit under reasonable conditions or can at least afford it and will win down the line. There are businesses who _think_ they can't afford it, but they might just be lacking imagination and long term thinking. Think of Henry Ford as an illustrative example of someone who had the imagination and holistic view, and thus improved working conditions.
epalm 4y ago
Sounds like those businesses aren't viable, and should fail. In other words, if a business cannot be profitable _and_ pay it's staff a livable wage, then the answer is to make adjustments so it can do both, or close the business. Paying staff a non-livable wage, while perhaps making/retaining a profit, is still hard on the business (high turnover rate, constantly retraining new people, etc), and is nearly untenable for the staff (required to work multiple jobs, 1 paycheck away from not making rent, etc). As a business owner, I know "close the business" sounds ludicrous to business owners, and isn't even on the table, but this so-called "labor shortage" is going to force things to go one way or the other.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  The efficiency of human labor in a lot of these industries hasn't increased enough to justify the full cost of the labor. There's next to no efficiency increase you can get out of a truck driver or a waiter. Getting all of these people into industries that do have a better human labor efficiency is going to be hard.
  - noelherrick 4y ago
    You make a claim that there's no way to pay them according to their value. But there's several ways I can say that this is not true. First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. Second, the food or the goods being transported can be more or less valuable. A trucker might haul packing peanuts vs. iPhones. Restaurants can be more expensive or have higher margins. Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it.
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      >First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. This is true on an individual level, but I don't believe that there has been much efficiency increase here that has permeated through the industry. There has been no shovel to digger moment that has improved the ability for most waitresses to do their work much more efficiently. I think it's going to happen with self-checkout though (you will still need someone to staff self-checkout). >Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it. But workers are better paid in the US than in almost any other country in the world: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY
trelane 4y ago
> simply don't make a profit under reasonable conditions. Profit is simply income minus expenses, accounting nonsense aside. The problem is not that businesses cannot make a profit. Rather, its that we've build in worker exploitation into our economy. Our prices should be higher than they are.
- brk 4y ago
  Or, employment taxes should be lower. This is really a very complex problem and equation. There is also the question of "worker exploitation" in the sense of "is it reasonable to assume a McDonalds cashier should earn enough to support a family?". In some, maybe even many, cases workers are likely underpaid. However, in many other cases, workers are paid relative to their overall value, but those same workers want to have a standard of living that is simply not practical with the job they hold.
  - barrenko 4y ago
    This is not like a retort but more an addendum - Just like healthcare, 20$ flights and shitty food, EVERYONE around that individual or item is paying for the rest of the actual value (or the environment, aka our offspring).
  - trelane 4y ago
    > employment taxes should be lower. I am unconvinced that this is the reason that businesses don't pay workers more. Workers are usually paid according to their _replacement_ cost not the value they bring generally. In an ideal equilibrium, where the worker can push back against the employer equally, sure. However, that's seldom the case. Businesses also push back harder by hiring _definitely_ exploited workers, e.g. in agriculture and meat packing, or by hiring contractors.
    - brk 4y ago
      To be clear, I am not saying it is the reason for sure, just that there are a lot more factors to this than the direct wage. Part of "lower wage taxes" would roll down to "less government support", which would theoretically roll down to "more people seeking gainful employment", which would affect the supply/demand curve of the labor pool, etc.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Utterly baffled by this comment. If you can't make a profit under reasonable conditions you have a cult, or perhaps a crime syndicate. Or a slave plantation. What you don't have is a business run by balanced functional adults.
- falcor84 4y ago
  I'd pay good money if you or someone were to attempt an objective assessment of whether the next company I plan to work at "is a business run by balanced functional adults".
  - happymellon 4y ago
    Do you have a strategy for paying your employees or are you planning on people working for you "for the exposure"? Do you have a strategy of implementing feedback from these highly skilled workers that you have hired, or is your feedback loop pointed at a black hole? Do you have high employee turnover? Do you feel like as the boss, you are allowed to sexually harass your staff?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Reasonable does a lot of heavy lifting.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    At least the slaves don't have to do it.
Supermancho 4y ago
> A lot of businesses simply don't make a profit under reasonable conditions Reasonable conditions of today include supporting wealth inequality (ridiculously top heavy salaries) to the point of being unstable.
danShumway 4y ago
Conversations about labor are a weird area where people are both commodified and also simultaneously shamed for acting like a commodity. Imagine opening up a shoe factory, finding out that the price of leather was too high to make a profit on leather shoes, and instead of reworking my business to match my expenses I instead demand that the leather be sold to me at a lower price. When the leather providers refuse, I go complain to a bunch of newspapers that nobody wants to sell leather anymore and that we're in a leather shortage. If your business requires all of its supplies and inputs to be sold to you below market value, then you don't have a business, you have a charity. Everyone would be able to make a profitable construction business if they got their lumber for free. Everyone could run a department store profitably if all of their inventory was given to them. But sustainable business is about learning how to build a product/service that generates more profit than the costs required to make it. If the initial costs are too high or it's a question of scaling, then that's what investments and/or subsidies are for. But either way, it's silly to try and shame suppliers (employees) for setting their own prices.

LadyCailin 4y ago

Then if those businesses shut down because they can’t find people to hire, that should be lauded, not feared.

Gigachad 4y ago
Reasonable is subjective. I have seen a developer borderline lose their job because they didn’t like the terms and conditions of a library that management wanted to use on the app. Even after management confirmed they are ok with the terms. Sometimes you do just need to accept decisions and move on. Or find a middle ground.
- nmfisher 4y ago
  Was this Richard Stallman’s first job?
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Not even that. It was some weird idea that the terms would expose the company to legal risk, despite the legal experts confirming its OK and them having no real financial stake in the company. Some people pick weird hills to die on. They absolutely see management as being evil and unreasonable over this despite anyone else looking at the situation seeing it as normal day to day business.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
Is no job better than bad job?
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  I would say if you have the proper social safety net, then yes. It gives you time to think about innovative new work, rather than shitty wage slave work.
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    Proper social net is probably less than 0.1% of worlds population.

dgb23 4y ago

Be careful with that notion. There are more businesses that do make profit under reasonable conditions or can at least afford it and will win down the line. There are businesses who _think_ they can't afford it, but they might just be lacking imagination and long term thinking. Think of Henry Ford as an illustrative example of someone who had the imagination and holistic view, and thus improved working conditions.

epalm 4y ago

Sounds like those businesses aren't viable, and should fail. In other words, if a business cannot be profitable _and_ pay it's staff a livable wage, then the answer is to make adjustments so it can do both, or close the business. Paying staff a non-livable wage, while perhaps making/retaining a profit, is still hard on the business (high turnover rate, constantly retraining new people, etc), and is nearly untenable for the staff (required to work multiple jobs, 1 paycheck away from not making rent, etc). As a business owner, I know "close the business" sounds ludicrous to business owners, and isn't even on the table, but this so-called "labor shortage" is going to force things to go one way or the other.

Aerroon 4y ago
The efficiency of human labor in a lot of these industries hasn't increased enough to justify the full cost of the labor. There's next to no efficiency increase you can get out of a truck driver or a waiter. Getting all of these people into industries that do have a better human labor efficiency is going to be hard.
- noelherrick 4y ago
  You make a claim that there's no way to pay them according to their value. But there's several ways I can say that this is not true. First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. Second, the food or the goods being transported can be more or less valuable. A trucker might haul packing peanuts vs. iPhones. Restaurants can be more expensive or have higher margins. Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    >First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. This is true on an individual level, but I don't believe that there has been much efficiency increase here that has permeated through the industry. There has been no shovel to digger moment that has improved the ability for most waitresses to do their work much more efficiently. I think it's going to happen with self-checkout though (you will still need someone to staff self-checkout). >Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it. But workers are better paid in the US than in almost any other country in the world: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY

trelane 4y ago

> simply don't make a profit under reasonable conditions. Profit is simply income minus expenses, accounting nonsense aside. The problem is not that businesses cannot make a profit. Rather, its that we've build in worker exploitation into our economy. Our prices should be higher than they are.

brk 4y ago
Or, employment taxes should be lower. This is really a very complex problem and equation. There is also the question of "worker exploitation" in the sense of "is it reasonable to assume a McDonalds cashier should earn enough to support a family?". In some, maybe even many, cases workers are likely underpaid. However, in many other cases, workers are paid relative to their overall value, but those same workers want to have a standard of living that is simply not practical with the job they hold.
- barrenko 4y ago
  This is not like a retort but more an addendum - Just like healthcare, 20$ flights and shitty food, EVERYONE around that individual or item is paying for the rest of the actual value (or the environment, aka our offspring).
- trelane 4y ago
  > employment taxes should be lower. I am unconvinced that this is the reason that businesses don't pay workers more. Workers are usually paid according to their _replacement_ cost not the value they bring generally. In an ideal equilibrium, where the worker can push back against the employer equally, sure. However, that's seldom the case. Businesses also push back harder by hiring _definitely_ exploited workers, e.g. in agriculture and meat packing, or by hiring contractors.
  - brk 4y ago
    To be clear, I am not saying it is the reason for sure, just that there are a lot more factors to this than the direct wage. Part of "lower wage taxes" would roll down to "less government support", which would theoretically roll down to "more people seeking gainful employment", which would affect the supply/demand curve of the labor pool, etc.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Utterly baffled by this comment. If you can't make a profit under reasonable conditions you have a cult, or perhaps a crime syndicate. Or a slave plantation. What you don't have is a business run by balanced functional adults.

falcor84 4y ago
I'd pay good money if you or someone were to attempt an objective assessment of whether the next company I plan to work at "is a business run by balanced functional adults".
- happymellon 4y ago
  Do you have a strategy for paying your employees or are you planning on people working for you "for the exposure"? Do you have a strategy of implementing feedback from these highly skilled workers that you have hired, or is your feedback loop pointed at a black hole? Do you have high employee turnover? Do you feel like as the boss, you are allowed to sexually harass your staff?
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Reasonable does a lot of heavy lifting.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  At least the slaves don't have to do it.

Supermancho 4y ago

> A lot of businesses simply don't make a profit under reasonable conditions Reasonable conditions of today include supporting wealth inequality (ridiculously top heavy salaries) to the point of being unstable.

danShumway 4y ago

Conversations about labor are a weird area where people are both commodified and also simultaneously shamed for acting like a commodity. Imagine opening up a shoe factory, finding out that the price of leather was too high to make a profit on leather shoes, and instead of reworking my business to match my expenses I instead demand that the leather be sold to me at a lower price. When the leather providers refuse, I go complain to a bunch of newspapers that nobody wants to sell leather anymore and that we're in a leather shortage. If your business requires all of its supplies and inputs to be sold to you below market value, then you don't have a business, you have a charity. Everyone would be able to make a profitable construction business if they got their lumber for free. Everyone could run a department store profitably if all of their inventory was given to them. But sustainable business is about learning how to build a product/service that generates more profit than the costs required to make it. If the initial costs are too high or it's a question of scaling, then that's what investments and/or subsidies are for. But either way, it's silly to try and shame suppliers (employees) for setting their own prices.