3 ms·

By what logic? What is the right price? I find it fascinating and deeply sad how the fundamental position on capital markets seemingly shifts depending on how

By what logic? What is the right price? I find it fascinating and deeply sad how the fundamental position on capital markets seemingly shifts depending on how we feel about our current treatment (as if there were not always people who took a hit)

GolfPopper 2y ago
A start would be wages matching productivity. World Economic Forum [1] "Between 1948-1979, the percent growth in productivity and wages were relatively similar, with an increase of 108 percent and 93 percent, respectively. The growth from 1979-2018, however, has been drastically different. While net productivity has continued to increase by an expected 70 percent, hourly compensation in the country is less than a fifth of that at just 12 percent." 1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/productivity-workforce-america-united-states-wages-stagnate/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/productivity-workforc...
- nradov 2y ago
  Hourly compensation has increased significantly more than that when you account for employer contributions to employee health insurance. We should have never allowed health insurance coverage to be tied to employment; that was a terrible public policy error but it's so entrenched now that it has become politically impossible to unwind.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Since 1979, foreign manufacturing has grown massively at the expense of domestic, second, enormous advances in technology. Are you, presumably a software programmer, more productive because you're inherently smarter, or a harder worker, than a colleague from the 60s-70s? Or do you have much, much, much better tools, languages, frameworks, graphics, etc to do your job? (You might even ask if you are, actually, more productive. Engineers in the 1960s created the 747 and put men on the moon. Not entirely sure either could be done today. GDP is not really the best way to measure "productivity.")
nielsbot 2y ago
The question is: who holds power in the relationship? If workers join together (unionize) they can demand a greater share of business' profits which are generated by those workers.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I find myself thinking of a certain kind of economic hypocrisy that I think floats around in the background, and I'm not sure how to label it: A: "The new economic system will be based on markets which price items based on their marginal cost over basically anything else, so no more of that tricky old philosophical talk of 'true value' or 'what someone deserves.' Nope, it'll all be based on whatever lands between the two parties' negotiating positions. Totally fair." B: "Okay then, all of us individual workers will group together to improve our weak negotiating position." A: "No! You're doing it wrong! You don't deserve to be paid that much, your labor isn't truly that valuable!"
kerkeslager 2y ago
> I find it fascinating and deeply sad how the fundamental position on capital markets seemingly shifts depending on how we feel about our current treatment (as if there were not always people who took a hit) That's not reality. Just because you base your fundamental position on capital markets on how you feel about your current treatment, doesn't mean everyone else does. What's deeply sad about this situation is that you don't even consider the possibility of empathy and concern for people less fortunate than ourselves.

GolfPopper 2y ago

A start would be wages matching productivity. World Economic Forum [1] "Between 1948-1979, the percent growth in productivity and wages were relatively similar, with an increase of 108 percent and 93 percent, respectively. The growth from 1979-2018, however, has been drastically different. While net productivity has continued to increase by an expected 70 percent, hourly compensation in the country is less than a fifth of that at just 12 percent." 1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/productivity-workforce-america-united-states-wages-stagnate/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/productivity-workforc...

nradov 2y ago
Hourly compensation has increased significantly more than that when you account for employer contributions to employee health insurance. We should have never allowed health insurance coverage to be tied to employment; that was a terrible public policy error but it's so entrenched now that it has become politically impossible to unwind.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
listenallyall 2y ago
Since 1979, foreign manufacturing has grown massively at the expense of domestic, second, enormous advances in technology. Are you, presumably a software programmer, more productive because you're inherently smarter, or a harder worker, than a colleague from the 60s-70s? Or do you have much, much, much better tools, languages, frameworks, graphics, etc to do your job? (You might even ask if you are, actually, more productive. Engineers in the 1960s created the 747 and put men on the moon. Not entirely sure either could be done today. GDP is not really the best way to measure "productivity.")

nielsbot 2y ago

The question is: who holds power in the relationship? If workers join together (unionize) they can demand a greater share of business' profits which are generated by those workers.

Terr_ 2y ago
I find myself thinking of a certain kind of economic hypocrisy that I think floats around in the background, and I'm not sure how to label it: A: "The new economic system will be based on markets which price items based on their marginal cost over basically anything else, so no more of that tricky old philosophical talk of 'true value' or 'what someone deserves.' Nope, it'll all be based on whatever lands between the two parties' negotiating positions. Totally fair." B: "Okay then, all of us individual workers will group together to improve our weak negotiating position." A: "No! You're doing it wrong! You don't deserve to be paid that much, your labor isn't truly that valuable!"

kerkeslager 2y ago

> I find it fascinating and deeply sad how the fundamental position on capital markets seemingly shifts depending on how we feel about our current treatment (as if there were not always people who took a hit) That's not reality. Just because you base your fundamental position on capital markets on how you feel about your current treatment, doesn't mean everyone else does. What's deeply sad about this situation is that you don't even consider the possibility of empathy and concern for people less fortunate than ourselves.