5 ms·

> Wonder why that is... Because selling labour is the most cut-throat business there is. To the point that we had to create extensive labour laws to stop the b

> Wonder why that is... Because selling labour is the most cut-throat business there is. To the point that we had to create extensive labour laws to stop the bleeding that always ensues when unencumbered labourers start competing with each other. Revealing price information to your competition puts you at a competitive disadvantage. If they know you charge $30 per hour, they'll jump in and offer to do it for $29 per hour. Conversely, if they don't know how much you charge, they are left to guess. If they think you charge $35 per hour, they'll offer $34 per hour, but then you'll win as you charge $30 per hour. Obviously you are disadvantaged if you let that information be known. Especially if they can withhold their information from you. No business wants to reveal price before they have to. Retail has to get the price out there early as it is the only way to get customers in the door, but businesses will keep things as close to their chest as possible. Try buying anything geared towards enterprise customers... In fact, ideally, they will leave the customer make the first offer as it is also a disadvantage to go first.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
That depends entirely on the balance of supply and demand. If there are 10 firms chasing 9 employees, more information will drive up prices. IF there are 10 employees chasing 9 jobs, more information will drive down prices.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Quite true. The former situation is rare, though. Even when it appears that there are 10 firms chasing 9 employees, a 10th is likely to materialize when they find out where the other vendors are situated, diminishing the opportunity for the 9 that were already in line.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    It isn't that rate. This phenomenon is the reason that every single job doesn't pay the minimum salary required by law.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Kind of. That's just supply and demand. But markets are never perfectly efficient. From my personal experience working in an industry that hires a lot of minimum wage workers, I encounter a lot of people who just don't realize that they could make more doing something else. I mean, they understand in some nebulous way that higher paying jobs exist, but not in an actionable way. With more information, they might notice that they could squeeze out a particular guy making $30 by doing the job for $25 per hour. But they don't even go there because they lack the information needed. At the same time, those minimum wage jobs I speak of aren't going to pay more if the people leave – the work would just disappear. So while these individuals would make more, they would place downward pressure on the overall market in making such a move. By keeping the information hard to come by, however, you can avoid some of that competitive pressure.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think we basically agree.
pphysch 3y ago
> Revealing price information to your competition puts you at a competitive disadvantage. > No business wants to reveal price before they have to. Interesting. If RealPage/etc is "just" about information sharing, as many of its defenders in these comments are asserting, why would any rentier use it? There must be more going on. Anyway, coworkers or friends sharing labor price information clearly has nothing to do with your rebuttal. The main outcome is that one party might be inspired to ask for a higher wage. It's a crude form of coordination, but that is why our capitalist society discourages it.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > why would any rentier use it? To facilitate collusion. Although I understand your larger sentiment. As a farmer, I have to align my prices with the Chicago Board of Trade, which in many ways is similar. Once price data becomes pervasive enough, there is a tipping point where you have to reveal your prices early to remain competitive. I mentioned retail earlier as being another example of where that has taken hold. That theoretically is a reason why rentiers could be compelled into using such a system absent of collusion taking place. > but that is why our capitalist society discourages it. I am not sure I understand the attribution to a capitalist society here. It was also discouraged to talk about income in Soviet Russia, as an example. That competitiveness of which we speak is not a function of a capitalist society, it is a function of human nature. Hell, I bet in early hunter-gatherer societies it was discouraged to talk about how much of the gathered resources you were able to keep for yourself.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    > It was also discouraged to talk about income in Soviet Russia, as an example. What evidence do you have for this? In current "socialist" countries like China, talking openly about wages is common and not discouraged. The incentives are crystal clear. Price coordination works, and workers in USA are brainwashed against doing it in their own benefit.
    - randomdata 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

That depends entirely on the balance of supply and demand. If there are 10 firms chasing 9 employees, more information will drive up prices. IF there are 10 employees chasing 9 jobs, more information will drive down prices.

randomdata 3y ago
Quite true. The former situation is rare, though. Even when it appears that there are 10 firms chasing 9 employees, a 10th is likely to materialize when they find out where the other vendors are situated, diminishing the opportunity for the 9 that were already in line.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  It isn't that rate. This phenomenon is the reason that every single job doesn't pay the minimum salary required by law.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Kind of. That's just supply and demand. But markets are never perfectly efficient. From my personal experience working in an industry that hires a lot of minimum wage workers, I encounter a lot of people who just don't realize that they could make more doing something else. I mean, they understand in some nebulous way that higher paying jobs exist, but not in an actionable way. With more information, they might notice that they could squeeze out a particular guy making $30 by doing the job for $25 per hour. But they don't even go there because they lack the information needed. At the same time, those minimum wage jobs I speak of aren't going to pay more if the people leave – the work would just disappear. So while these individuals would make more, they would place downward pressure on the overall market in making such a move. By keeping the information hard to come by, however, you can avoid some of that competitive pressure.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think we basically agree.

pphysch 3y ago

> Revealing price information to your competition puts you at a competitive disadvantage. > No business wants to reveal price before they have to. Interesting. If RealPage/etc is "just" about information sharing, as many of its defenders in these comments are asserting, why would any rentier use it? There must be more going on. Anyway, coworkers or friends sharing labor price information clearly has nothing to do with your rebuttal. The main outcome is that one party might be inspired to ask for a higher wage. It's a crude form of coordination, but that is why our capitalist society discourages it.

randomdata 3y ago
> why would any rentier use it? To facilitate collusion. Although I understand your larger sentiment. As a farmer, I have to align my prices with the Chicago Board of Trade, which in many ways is similar. Once price data becomes pervasive enough, there is a tipping point where you have to reveal your prices early to remain competitive. I mentioned retail earlier as being another example of where that has taken hold. That theoretically is a reason why rentiers could be compelled into using such a system absent of collusion taking place. > but that is why our capitalist society discourages it. I am not sure I understand the attribution to a capitalist society here. It was also discouraged to talk about income in Soviet Russia, as an example. That competitiveness of which we speak is not a function of a capitalist society, it is a function of human nature. Hell, I bet in early hunter-gatherer societies it was discouraged to talk about how much of the gathered resources you were able to keep for yourself.
- pphysch 3y ago
  > It was also discouraged to talk about income in Soviet Russia, as an example. What evidence do you have for this? In current "socialist" countries like China, talking openly about wages is common and not discouraged. The incentives are crystal clear. Price coordination works, and workers in USA are brainwashed against doing it in their own benefit.
  - randomdata 3y ago