7 ms·

Yeah and that can happen by paying everybody more. Salaries have largely stayed the same while prices have risen and that excess has gone to profits. If worker

Yeah and that can happen by paying everybody more. Salaries have largely stayed the same while prices have risen and that excess has gone to profits. If workers demand more pay and they force the issue, the economy eventually will reach equilibrium. The issue currently is that those workers can't really do that because the US government has shown time and again that they don't really care that much if a company violates organised labor laws or labor laws in general (you get a fine and a slap on the wrist) but they will bring down god's wrath if workers/a union has an "illegal strike" after the employer ignores their demands. There is a reason why ever since Reagan took a hardline anti-union stance and disbanded the PATCO union for having the audacity to strike in the 1980s that the number of major strikes per year has steadily declined. https://www.bls.gov/web/wkstp/annual-listing.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/wkstp/annual-listing.htm

johnnyanmac 3y ago
if you pay everyone 10% more, the difference between a $30k worker barely scaping by and a $100k worker that is cofortable simply increases by $7k. I'm not saying everyone can't get a pay raise, but we can't think linearly here. Semiconductor workers aren't exactly applying for food stamps.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > if you pay everyone 10% more, the difference between a $30k worker barely scaping by and a $100k worker that is cofortable simply increases by $7k. As long as more of the gross profit goes to workers, that's a step in the right direction. Though I would say the linear solution is paying everyone $6k more, which is much better!
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >As long as more of the gross profit goes to workers, that's a step in the right direction. That's now how the lesser paid workers will see it, unfortunately. >Though I would say the linear solution is paying everyone $6k more, which is much better! That would be flat (Y = 6000 vs Y = 1.X%). Perhaps better, but I'm not sure if that's been done outside of stimulus checks. I think what the person up chain was alluding to was to increase minimum wage or similar initiatives. Doesn't help the higher end of the working class but helps out the lower end immensely, and indirectly helps out the middle as well.
    - ms4720 3y ago
      Minimum wage raises encourage two things in business: - automation, ie order at a kiosk at McDonald's - not hiring for the job because it is not profitable to do. This is what happens to low skill workers when we make low skill jobs too expensive.
      - wildrhythms 3y ago
        Not sure if you've noticed but all those things have happened (self checkout, ordering kiosks) while wages haven't grown to meet inflation.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Sure, and that's not a bad thing by itself. It moves the needle up. I don't think corporate has ever said "we have too many people who want to work". There will be more jobs out there that can't be automated, at least until we hit Terminator levels of sentience. But by then our robot overlords will solve capitalism for us.
- bombolo 3y ago
  True, you also need to cap house and land prices.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    While we're at it the government should set fixed prices for everything and for maximum efficiency they should also control the rate of production. We can call our nation the Democratic People's Republic of Soviet States.
    - bombolo 3y ago
      A nation that went from middle ages to the space age in 50 years, and where the standard of living went up immensely? Sounds better than the current situation where the trends are reversed.
      - ms4720 3y ago
        Gulags are good?
        reisse 3y ago
        Given the US incarceration rate now, it'd be not far from truth to say that US is having its own Gulag moment. Just without other Soviet benefits.
        dh2022 3y ago
        You really should emigrate to North Korea. (Of course you will not do that, everyone is a hero on the internet.)
        bombolo 3y ago
        I'm not sure how bad north korea really is. Because, despite what you may think, we do get propaganda. See how every single time a ransomware hits a company it's always russia/iran/north korea sending it? Do you really think there are no criminals in the rest of the world trying to make some quick money? Or, notice how ukraine went from "nazi shithole" to "beacon of freedom and democracy" once the war started? To know how things really are behind the propaganda is basically impossible. > Of course you will not do that, everyone is a hero on the internet Well most people don't speak korean…
qwytw 3y ago
> Salaries have largely stayed the same Salaries for the top 10% or so have increased significantly over the years. Of course it still pales in comparison to how much the incomes of the top 1% increased over the same period (meaning there is enough money/productivity to pay everyone more)
infogulch 3y ago
A big part of the problem is the fed that literally pursues a monetary policy that intends to suppress real wage growth. This is why wages are flat for 30 years.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  And now they also want people to be laid off.
  - probelm 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >SWEs could halt the fiat economy tomorrow through collective action From my experience, modern SWEs are the workers' category least likely to get involved in any kind of collective action. They're too self centered and individualistic for that. Everyone's too busy trying to get "theirs", while kicking down the ladder beneath them, thinking they'll be the next Larry Page. It wasn't always like this though. I think the insane demand and crazy compensation levels in the last decade changed the mentality and inflated the egos, reducing compassion and empathy, turning SWEs in the new finance bros, except more introverted and doing less cocaine.
      - probelm 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - sofixa 3y ago
        > From my experience, modern SWEs are the workers' category least likely to get involved in any kind of collective action. They're too self centered and individualistic for that. Not to mention way too well paid, comfortable and with lots to lose. Why risk a very comfortable lifestyle for some noble goal that barely concerns you unless you have tons of empathy?
- 3y ago
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> Yeah and that can happen by paying everybody more. How can that be done without either stoking massive inflation or somehow paying someone else less?
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  I really don't care if shareholders get less money or if a CEO gets less of a bonus. It's OK to pay some people less.
  - cpursley 3y ago
    So it’s okay screwing retired teachers living of funds they’ve paid into their entire working career? Because that’s the typical type of person who owns stock (not directly).
    - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
      Obviously society thinks it is OK. If we didn't, we wouldn't let retirement funds be dependent on how well stocks do - and we only did that after plundering other people's pensions and screwing them over. They might indirectly own it, but it is other folks getting rich off of their money. Realistically, no one should have risk when paying into pensions/retirement for later and it should be somewhat promised. The entire system is reprehensible as it stands.
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      No of course not. But keep in mind it's a relatively new phenomenon for most people to rely on stocks/401k/IRA for their retirement. Prior to that retirement funds were primarily handled by pensions where the company or organisation you worked for put away money for you in a fund and for the employee there was little to no risk that this money would disappear or diminish in value. Behind the scenes the company may invest it in various ways but it was generally a "low risk" retirement fund. The reason why every company and organisation (other than a handful of government orgs) got rid of pensions and switched to investment based retirement funds was because the risk got moved away from the company to the employee and as a result it was cheaper to operate. And as an added bonus, now any time we want to consider raising wages or improving things for workers at the cost of shareholders profits, companies can turn around and argue "this is hurting retired people". So no of course not I don't think retired people should be getting fucked out of the funds they've been paying into for their entire careers but they shouldn't be paying into those funds in the first place. Unless they explicitly opt into that risk, they should be getting access to a pension with guaranteed payout by default.
brailsafe 3y ago
More money in the system drives inequality if fundamental necessities like shelter supply remain artificially choked by people with even more money as they simply buy up and out-bid as much as possible. If that weren't the case, I'd agree. Even as I a software person gradually make more money when I'm not in a perpetual cycle of working and being laid off, a tiny condo already being out of reach is only going to get dramatically more out of reach if salaries rise while most of an arbitrary city's development rate is beleaguered by boomers, arduous bureaucracy, investors, and people with their boomer parent's money willing to spend it, knowing it'll always increase. Not that people shouldn't fight to be paid more, just that it has limited effect unless you happen to get paid significantly more than everyone else compared to what things cost now, and hope that continues forever.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

if you pay everyone 10% more, the difference between a $30k worker barely scaping by and a $100k worker that is cofortable simply increases by $7k. I'm not saying everyone can't get a pay raise, but we can't think linearly here. Semiconductor workers aren't exactly applying for food stamps.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> if you pay everyone 10% more, the difference between a $30k worker barely scaping by and a $100k worker that is cofortable simply increases by $7k. As long as more of the gross profit goes to workers, that's a step in the right direction. Though I would say the linear solution is paying everyone $6k more, which is much better!
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >As long as more of the gross profit goes to workers, that's a step in the right direction. That's now how the lesser paid workers will see it, unfortunately. >Though I would say the linear solution is paying everyone $6k more, which is much better! That would be flat (Y = 6000 vs Y = 1.X%). Perhaps better, but I'm not sure if that's been done outside of stimulus checks. I think what the person up chain was alluding to was to increase minimum wage or similar initiatives. Doesn't help the higher end of the working class but helps out the lower end immensely, and indirectly helps out the middle as well.
  - ms4720 3y ago
    Minimum wage raises encourage two things in business: - automation, ie order at a kiosk at McDonald's - not hiring for the job because it is not profitable to do. This is what happens to low skill workers when we make low skill jobs too expensive.
    - wildrhythms 3y ago
      Not sure if you've noticed but all those things have happened (self checkout, ordering kiosks) while wages haven't grown to meet inflation.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Sure, and that's not a bad thing by itself. It moves the needle up. I don't think corporate has ever said "we have too many people who want to work". There will be more jobs out there that can't be automated, at least until we hit Terminator levels of sentience. But by then our robot overlords will solve capitalism for us.
bombolo 3y ago
True, you also need to cap house and land prices.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  While we're at it the government should set fixed prices for everything and for maximum efficiency they should also control the rate of production. We can call our nation the Democratic People's Republic of Soviet States.
  - bombolo 3y ago
    A nation that went from middle ages to the space age in 50 years, and where the standard of living went up immensely? Sounds better than the current situation where the trends are reversed.
    - ms4720 3y ago
      Gulags are good?
      - reisse 3y ago
        Given the US incarceration rate now, it'd be not far from truth to say that US is having its own Gulag moment. Just without other Soviet benefits.
        dh2022 3y ago
        You really should emigrate to North Korea. (Of course you will not do that, everyone is a hero on the internet.)
        bombolo 3y ago
        I'm not sure how bad north korea really is. Because, despite what you may think, we do get propaganda. See how every single time a ransomware hits a company it's always russia/iran/north korea sending it? Do you really think there are no criminals in the rest of the world trying to make some quick money? Or, notice how ukraine went from "nazi shithole" to "beacon of freedom and democracy" once the war started? To know how things really are behind the propaganda is basically impossible. > Of course you will not do that, everyone is a hero on the internet Well most people don't speak korean…

qwytw 3y ago

> Salaries have largely stayed the same Salaries for the top 10% or so have increased significantly over the years. Of course it still pales in comparison to how much the incomes of the top 1% increased over the same period (meaning there is enough money/productivity to pay everyone more)

infogulch 3y ago

A big part of the problem is the fed that literally pursues a monetary policy that intends to suppress real wage growth. This is why wages are flat for 30 years.

rightbyte 3y ago
And now they also want people to be laid off.
- probelm 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >SWEs could halt the fiat economy tomorrow through collective action From my experience, modern SWEs are the workers' category least likely to get involved in any kind of collective action. They're too self centered and individualistic for that. Everyone's too busy trying to get "theirs", while kicking down the ladder beneath them, thinking they'll be the next Larry Page. It wasn't always like this though. I think the insane demand and crazy compensation levels in the last decade changed the mentality and inflated the egos, reducing compassion and empathy, turning SWEs in the new finance bros, except more introverted and doing less cocaine.
    - probelm 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - sofixa 3y ago
      > From my experience, modern SWEs are the workers' category least likely to get involved in any kind of collective action. They're too self centered and individualistic for that. Not to mention way too well paid, comfortable and with lots to lose. Why risk a very comfortable lifestyle for some noble goal that barely concerns you unless you have tons of empathy?
3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

> Yeah and that can happen by paying everybody more. How can that be done without either stoking massive inflation or somehow paying someone else less?

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
I really don't care if shareholders get less money or if a CEO gets less of a bonus. It's OK to pay some people less.
- cpursley 3y ago
  So it’s okay screwing retired teachers living of funds they’ve paid into their entire working career? Because that’s the typical type of person who owns stock (not directly).
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    Obviously society thinks it is OK. If we didn't, we wouldn't let retirement funds be dependent on how well stocks do - and we only did that after plundering other people's pensions and screwing them over. They might indirectly own it, but it is other folks getting rich off of their money. Realistically, no one should have risk when paying into pensions/retirement for later and it should be somewhat promised. The entire system is reprehensible as it stands.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    No of course not. But keep in mind it's a relatively new phenomenon for most people to rely on stocks/401k/IRA for their retirement. Prior to that retirement funds were primarily handled by pensions where the company or organisation you worked for put away money for you in a fund and for the employee there was little to no risk that this money would disappear or diminish in value. Behind the scenes the company may invest it in various ways but it was generally a "low risk" retirement fund. The reason why every company and organisation (other than a handful of government orgs) got rid of pensions and switched to investment based retirement funds was because the risk got moved away from the company to the employee and as a result it was cheaper to operate. And as an added bonus, now any time we want to consider raising wages or improving things for workers at the cost of shareholders profits, companies can turn around and argue "this is hurting retired people". So no of course not I don't think retired people should be getting fucked out of the funds they've been paying into for their entire careers but they shouldn't be paying into those funds in the first place. Unless they explicitly opt into that risk, they should be getting access to a pension with guaranteed payout by default.

brailsafe 3y ago

More money in the system drives inequality if fundamental necessities like shelter supply remain artificially choked by people with even more money as they simply buy up and out-bid as much as possible. If that weren't the case, I'd agree. Even as I a software person gradually make more money when I'm not in a perpetual cycle of working and being laid off, a tiny condo already being out of reach is only going to get dramatically more out of reach if salaries rise while most of an arbitrary city's development rate is beleaguered by boomers, arduous bureaucracy, investors, and people with their boomer parent's money willing to spend it, knowing it'll always increase. Not that people shouldn't fight to be paid more, just that it has limited effect unless you happen to get paid significantly more than everyone else compared to what things cost now, and hope that continues forever.