3 ms·

Employers are the buyers of labour. If food prices depend on what the consumer can bear, then labour prices should depend on what the employer can bear. And mos

by mcv 4y ago

Employers are the buyers of labour. If food prices depend on what the consumer can bear, then labour prices should depend on what the employer can bear. And most of them can bear a lot more than they're currently paying.

sokoloff 4y ago
It is a market. Employers and consumers will pay what they have to be satiated. If they can’t afford that, they’ll have to make do with less. If something is priced too high and there are viable alternatives, they’ll consider those alternatives.
- mcv 4y ago
  And so should employees, of course. We have options too.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Absolutely! Everyone is free to select among their options the one that they most prefer.
    - interactivecode 4y ago
      though you have to admit in basically all situations the employer has more leverage than a single employee.
      - mcv 4y ago
        That is the big fundamental problem of employer-employee relations. They hold more power and it's easier for them to organise with other employers without anyone being aware of it. The only way to balance that is for employees to also get organised. Or ban corporations, I suppose.
        kroltan 4y ago
        I think you're onto something on that last thought.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        This depends on the worker... if we're talking about a job that 'anyone' can do, sure... worker is replaced within a week, and the worker might need more than a week to find a new job. But a professional in a small team, usually witha bus factor of 1? This means a hard time finding a new employee + months of training, while the old worker probably found a new job before they even quit at the first one.
        SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        But if the current employee turned around and asked for double their wage their current employer would say no - they have leverage in that they can walk away and it would cause a lot of hardship for the company in the short term, but it's amazing how little the company is willing to part with to ensure that that employee stays.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Some companies care, and people don't leave because of that. Some don't care, and people leave. Nobody writes a blogpost saying: "i got a raise so I didn't quit", because noone reads that... a blog post saying "company has huge profits, only offers small raise, so I quit and find a better job" is a whole different thing.
        toyg 4y ago
        > Nobody writes a blogpost saying: "i got a raise so I didn't quit" There are plenty of blogposts from the other side, about "never give a raise to a flight-risk, because their loyalty is already shot". The business strategy is to quietly hire a (typically cheaper) replacement, then fire the uppity employee.
      - logifail 4y ago
        > though you have to admit in basically all situations the employer has more leverage than a single employee This depends on how happy/able the employee is to leave to find an alternative. A while ago I was at a trade fair in Germany and happened to see an advert from a jobs website, it read (roughly translated): "Hate your job ... ? It's your own fault!" (ie that you've not yet left the job you claim to hate...)
      - ejb999 4y ago
        the employer has more leverage in who they choose to hire and what they choose to pay - but potential employees hold all the leverage about where they choose to work and the amount they are willing to accept.
      - zajio1am 4y ago
        I do not think so. Transaction costs for employee are small - several months of lost pay (before finding new employer), which would be mostly covered by severance pay or unemployment insurance anyway. Transaction costs for employer depends, they generally pay for lost productivity during training-in period and lost institutional knowledge in case of high-knowledge workers.
        toyg 4y ago
        > Transaction costs for employee are small Must be nice being wealthy. Most people can barely go a single month without a paycheck. > severance pay or unemployment insurance Lol. In the UK, severance pay is one week per year of service, i.e. nothing. Unemployment insurance typically covers only specific costs, like mortgages, and can be significantly expensive. And this is quite good compared to what happens almost anywhere outside of Europe. > Transaction costs for employer depends For any well-established business with significant redundancy, these costs are minimal. Only small companies suffer significantly when losing an employee.
        zajio1am 4y ago
        > Must be nice being wealthy. Most people can barely go a single month without a paycheck. Not necessary wealthy. For people with median pay, it is more about financial responsibility. According to EU-SILC data more than half EU population has financial reserves for at lest three months. > Lol. In the UK, severance pay is one week per year of service, i.e. nothing. Unemployment insurance typically covers only specific costs, like mortgages, and can be significantly expensive. Here in Czechia it is 2 months notice period, then severance pay is 3 months (for > 2 years of employment), and then 5 months of government unemployment benefits on ~half pay. So 10 months to find a new job. > For any well-established business with significant redundancy, these costs are minimal Even in large businesses you can have small teams with domain experts, losing them can be costly.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  "Market" is just another way of saying "Power differential." Most corporate cultures are inherently authoritarian, with money being used as a proxy for power. Empirically there is plenty of evidence that given a choice, many businesses would rather maintain the power differential and complain about "lack of applicants" than increase pay and suffer a corresponding diminution of authority. Stock is an even more specific proxy for power, which is why stock options that have real value are usually reserved for those at the top of the hierarchy. This is also why remote working is unpalatable. Even if it increases productivity it also enhances worker autonomy and reduces the power differential. That's not acceptable in an authoritarian culture. Attitudes to remote work can be a useful indicator of how central hierarchy is in the culture.
  - eru 4y ago
    > Empirically there is plenty of evidence that given a choice, many businesses would rather maintain the power differential and complain about "lack of applicants" than increase pay and suffer a corresponding diminution of authority. Why does any company every pay more than the legally required minimum, then?
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      if you have 0 employees and nobody will work for you until you raise your pay to three times the legally required minimum, you raise because otherwise there is no power differential. If you have 10 employees and you want to hire 3 more but to do that you have to increase their pay by 25% in relation to others then you might decide not to because this decreases power for everyone (should they find out what you're paying these others)
  - prewett 4y ago
    > "Market" is just another way of saying "Power differential." Oh come on. This is a cynical or Marxist take, but it's pretty obviously untrue. A flea market, farmers market, FB marketplace doesn't have a substantial power imbalance. A market may have a power imbalance, but it is not required. People can exchange goods/services at equal power, and routinely do so. And if I understand economics correctly, that's the purpose of a "free" market: no artificial power imbalances.
ejb999 4y ago
it is not about what they 'can' bear, it's about what they are willing to bear - it is not the same thing - the company can decide what they are willing to bear, and the employee can decide what they are willing to work for. Doesn't sound like a problem that needs fixing.
anthonypasq 4y ago
thats because the person you're responding to is wrong. its simply finding an equilibrium price.

by mcv 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

It is a market. Employers and consumers will pay what they have to be satiated. If they can’t afford that, they’ll have to make do with less. If something is priced too high and there are viable alternatives, they’ll consider those alternatives.

mcv 4y ago
And so should employees, of course. We have options too.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Absolutely! Everyone is free to select among their options the one that they most prefer.
  - interactivecode 4y ago
    though you have to admit in basically all situations the employer has more leverage than a single employee.
    - mcv 4y ago
      That is the big fundamental problem of employer-employee relations. They hold more power and it's easier for them to organise with other employers without anyone being aware of it. The only way to balance that is for employees to also get organised. Or ban corporations, I suppose.
      - kroltan 4y ago
        I think you're onto something on that last thought.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      This depends on the worker... if we're talking about a job that 'anyone' can do, sure... worker is replaced within a week, and the worker might need more than a week to find a new job. But a professional in a small team, usually witha bus factor of 1? This means a hard time finding a new employee + months of training, while the old worker probably found a new job before they even quit at the first one.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        But if the current employee turned around and asked for double their wage their current employer would say no - they have leverage in that they can walk away and it would cause a lot of hardship for the company in the short term, but it's amazing how little the company is willing to part with to ensure that that employee stays.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Some companies care, and people don't leave because of that. Some don't care, and people leave. Nobody writes a blogpost saying: "i got a raise so I didn't quit", because noone reads that... a blog post saying "company has huge profits, only offers small raise, so I quit and find a better job" is a whole different thing.
        toyg 4y ago
        > Nobody writes a blogpost saying: "i got a raise so I didn't quit" There are plenty of blogposts from the other side, about "never give a raise to a flight-risk, because their loyalty is already shot". The business strategy is to quietly hire a (typically cheaper) replacement, then fire the uppity employee.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > though you have to admit in basically all situations the employer has more leverage than a single employee This depends on how happy/able the employee is to leave to find an alternative. A while ago I was at a trade fair in Germany and happened to see an advert from a jobs website, it read (roughly translated): "Hate your job ... ? It's your own fault!" (ie that you've not yet left the job you claim to hate...)
    - ejb999 4y ago
      the employer has more leverage in who they choose to hire and what they choose to pay - but potential employees hold all the leverage about where they choose to work and the amount they are willing to accept.
    - zajio1am 4y ago
      I do not think so. Transaction costs for employee are small - several months of lost pay (before finding new employer), which would be mostly covered by severance pay or unemployment insurance anyway. Transaction costs for employer depends, they generally pay for lost productivity during training-in period and lost institutional knowledge in case of high-knowledge workers.
      - toyg 4y ago
        > Transaction costs for employee are small Must be nice being wealthy. Most people can barely go a single month without a paycheck. > severance pay or unemployment insurance Lol. In the UK, severance pay is one week per year of service, i.e. nothing. Unemployment insurance typically covers only specific costs, like mortgages, and can be significantly expensive. And this is quite good compared to what happens almost anywhere outside of Europe. > Transaction costs for employer depends For any well-established business with significant redundancy, these costs are minimal. Only small companies suffer significantly when losing an employee.
        zajio1am 4y ago
        > Must be nice being wealthy. Most people can barely go a single month without a paycheck. Not necessary wealthy. For people with median pay, it is more about financial responsibility. According to EU-SILC data more than half EU population has financial reserves for at lest three months. > Lol. In the UK, severance pay is one week per year of service, i.e. nothing. Unemployment insurance typically covers only specific costs, like mortgages, and can be significantly expensive. Here in Czechia it is 2 months notice period, then severance pay is 3 months (for > 2 years of employment), and then 5 months of government unemployment benefits on ~half pay. So 10 months to find a new job. > For any well-established business with significant redundancy, these costs are minimal Even in large businesses you can have small teams with domain experts, losing them can be costly.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
"Market" is just another way of saying "Power differential." Most corporate cultures are inherently authoritarian, with money being used as a proxy for power. Empirically there is plenty of evidence that given a choice, many businesses would rather maintain the power differential and complain about "lack of applicants" than increase pay and suffer a corresponding diminution of authority. Stock is an even more specific proxy for power, which is why stock options that have real value are usually reserved for those at the top of the hierarchy. This is also why remote working is unpalatable. Even if it increases productivity it also enhances worker autonomy and reduces the power differential. That's not acceptable in an authoritarian culture. Attitudes to remote work can be a useful indicator of how central hierarchy is in the culture.
- eru 4y ago
  > Empirically there is plenty of evidence that given a choice, many businesses would rather maintain the power differential and complain about "lack of applicants" than increase pay and suffer a corresponding diminution of authority. Why does any company every pay more than the legally required minimum, then?
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    if you have 0 employees and nobody will work for you until you raise your pay to three times the legally required minimum, you raise because otherwise there is no power differential. If you have 10 employees and you want to hire 3 more but to do that you have to increase their pay by 25% in relation to others then you might decide not to because this decreases power for everyone (should they find out what you're paying these others)
- prewett 4y ago
  > "Market" is just another way of saying "Power differential." Oh come on. This is a cynical or Marxist take, but it's pretty obviously untrue. A flea market, farmers market, FB marketplace doesn't have a substantial power imbalance. A market may have a power imbalance, but it is not required. People can exchange goods/services at equal power, and routinely do so. And if I understand economics correctly, that's the purpose of a "free" market: no artificial power imbalances.

ejb999 4y ago

it is not about what they 'can' bear, it's about what they are willing to bear - it is not the same thing - the company can decide what they are willing to bear, and the employee can decide what they are willing to work for. Doesn't sound like a problem that needs fixing.

anthonypasq 4y ago

thats because the person you're responding to is wrong. its simply finding an equilibrium price.