4 ms·

Gold was struck, it is just already in the hands of the capitalists. More automation, and no commensurate pay rise for the workers still employed.

by toxik 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago
I must be completely missing a connection here. Why would automation ever be expected to also come with an increase in worker's pay?
- toxik 2y ago
  When my company makes 10% more profit from my work, my pay should increase 10% for it to be fair. This does of course not happen, which is my point. When the company makes 10% less, though, pay cuts are not unusual.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Why should it work that way though? Initial hiring salaries are generally based largely on the market rate for talent, not the expected profit creates by the employee. If they are expected to share 10% of all profits with existing employees wouldn't that create incentives for them to fire existing employees and rehire at market rates, effectively avoiding the profit sharing scheme? In theory it does sound great for the employee, I wouldn't argue with that at all. But unless profit sharing is part of the compensation agreement up front it seems unreasonable to expect. That said, some companies absolutely do offer bonuses tied to profit targets. They're one-time bonuses so employee pay isn't adjusted up or down every single year to follow profits, they just get some cash incentive to share some of the profits with employees.
stavros 2y ago
This post by Bunnie really warmed me up to China's IP culture: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2014/from-gongkai-to-open-source/ https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2014/from-gongkai-to-open... Basically, they have a much more loose attitude towards IP. This means that you might not be able to make ALL THE MONEY when you invent something (or, when one of your underpaid employees invents something), but society as a whole benefits. The system balances itself, as if you make it too unprofitable to invent things, then nobody will do it, but it stops this avalanche effect where only massive companies can make money because they have disproportionately many resources to spend on both R&D and IP defense.

Gold was struck, it is just already in the hands of the capitalists. More automation, and no commensurate pay rise for the workers still employed.

by toxik 2y ago

Gold was struck, it is just already in the hands of the capitalists. More automation, and no commensurate pay rise for the workers still employed.

_heimdall 2y ago

I must be completely missing a connection here. Why would automation ever be expected to also come with an increase in worker's pay?

toxik 2y ago
When my company makes 10% more profit from my work, my pay should increase 10% for it to be fair. This does of course not happen, which is my point. When the company makes 10% less, though, pay cuts are not unusual.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Why should it work that way though? Initial hiring salaries are generally based largely on the market rate for talent, not the expected profit creates by the employee. If they are expected to share 10% of all profits with existing employees wouldn't that create incentives for them to fire existing employees and rehire at market rates, effectively avoiding the profit sharing scheme? In theory it does sound great for the employee, I wouldn't argue with that at all. But unless profit sharing is part of the compensation agreement up front it seems unreasonable to expect. That said, some companies absolutely do offer bonuses tied to profit targets. They're one-time bonuses so employee pay isn't adjusted up or down every single year to follow profits, they just get some cash incentive to share some of the profits with employees.

stavros 2y ago

This post by Bunnie really warmed me up to China's IP culture: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2014/from-gongkai-to-open-source/ https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2014/from-gongkai-to-open... Basically, they have a much more loose attitude towards IP. This means that you might not be able to make ALL THE MONEY when you invent something (or, when one of your underpaid employees invents something), but society as a whole benefits. The system balances itself, as if you make it too unprofitable to invent things, then nobody will do it, but it stops this avalanche effect where only massive companies can make money because they have disproportionately many resources to spend on both R&D and IP defense.