6 ms·

Other companies know easily what their competitors are paying... you can't leverage labor market competition to bump your salary. You can't start a bidding war

by jppope 2y ago

Other companies know easily what their competitors are paying... you can't leverage labor market competition to bump your salary. You can't start a bidding war between employers.

surgical_fire 2y ago
Let's pretend companies don't collude to suppress salaries. Of course, this would never happen. In capitalism, fair competition is a given.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > companies don't collude to suppress salaries If companies treat employees as commodities, which is largely the case, they don't have to collude to suppress salaries. The basic economics of commodities is enough. The only way for employees to really have any bargaining power is to not be commodities; but trying to do that as employees is swimming against a strong economic current, because companies who can't treat their employees as commodities are in a more precarious business position than companies that can. In other words, if you really think you're being underpaid as an employee compared to the value you create, your best option is to stop being an employee and become an owner of a company. And as an owner, if you are going to have any employees, you are going to end up under strong business pressure to treat them as commodities, so if you don't want to do that, your best option is to not have any employees in the first place: the owners either do the work themselves or outsource it to the owners of other companies with contracts.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    Which is why proper regulations that ensure labor protections is a good thing. The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial, and the employer has all the power in that relationship.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > proper regulations that ensure labor protections Don't. Regulatory capture is a thing. > The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial In general, no, it is no more so than any contractual relationship. However, to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, that does add an adversarial element. > the employer has all the power in that relationship. Again, this is not true in general, but to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, yes, that means their bargaining power is minimal. However, this is not something that can be fixed by regulation, because, as above, employers, who, in the cases where employees can be treated as commodities, will be large corporations, can just buy the regulations that favor them. To the extent that they have to accept provisions that they would rather not have, for example minimum wage, limitations on how they can fire people, requirements for "fairness" in compensation, etc., those provisions don't actually help employees; they make us all poorer by reducing overall productivity, so while the relative position of some people might be improved, in absolute terms they are still worse off, like everyone else.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        I fundamentally disagree with most everything you said. Worker protections do not reduce productivity, this is a typical talking point of employers who only seek to reduce costs of employment, at the expense of employees. Even if it increased productivity, without regulation protecting employees the profits of that increased productivity are all harnessed by the elites who own the capital, and the workers are all poorer because of that. If regulatory capture in labor protections was a thing, the large companies would pressure for strong labor protections, instead of always rallying and lobbying against thoae
        pdonis 2y ago
        > Worker protections do not reduce productivity To the extent that they protect workers who are genuinely productive, of course they don't reduce the productivity of those workers. But to the extent that they protect workers who aren't genuinely productive (by making them harder to fire, and more generally making it harder to reduce their impact), they do reduce overall productivity. > without regulation protecting employees the profits of that increased productivity are all harnessed by the elites who own the capital If you believe the story that's being told about the last four decades or so, this was happening with regulations protecting employees all over the place. So if those regulations are supposed to be preventing it from happening, they're not working.
diggan 2y ago
That sounds better for the employees since you can see what others at competitors are earning, so you can ask management to either bump you or you'll go offer your time somewhere else.

by jppope 2y ago

Other companies know easily what their competitors are paying... you can't leverage labor market competition to bump your salary. You can't start a bidding war between employers.

surgical_fire 2y ago

Let's pretend companies don't collude to suppress salaries. Of course, this would never happen. In capitalism, fair competition is a given.

pdonis 2y ago
> companies don't collude to suppress salaries If companies treat employees as commodities, which is largely the case, they don't have to collude to suppress salaries. The basic economics of commodities is enough. The only way for employees to really have any bargaining power is to not be commodities; but trying to do that as employees is swimming against a strong economic current, because companies who can't treat their employees as commodities are in a more precarious business position than companies that can. In other words, if you really think you're being underpaid as an employee compared to the value you create, your best option is to stop being an employee and become an owner of a company. And as an owner, if you are going to have any employees, you are going to end up under strong business pressure to treat them as commodities, so if you don't want to do that, your best option is to not have any employees in the first place: the owners either do the work themselves or outsource it to the owners of other companies with contracts.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  Which is why proper regulations that ensure labor protections is a good thing. The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial, and the employer has all the power in that relationship.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > proper regulations that ensure labor protections Don't. Regulatory capture is a thing. > The relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally adversarial In general, no, it is no more so than any contractual relationship. However, to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, that does add an adversarial element. > the employer has all the power in that relationship. Again, this is not true in general, but to the extent that employees can be treated as commodities, yes, that means their bargaining power is minimal. However, this is not something that can be fixed by regulation, because, as above, employers, who, in the cases where employees can be treated as commodities, will be large corporations, can just buy the regulations that favor them. To the extent that they have to accept provisions that they would rather not have, for example minimum wage, limitations on how they can fire people, requirements for "fairness" in compensation, etc., those provisions don't actually help employees; they make us all poorer by reducing overall productivity, so while the relative position of some people might be improved, in absolute terms they are still worse off, like everyone else.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      I fundamentally disagree with most everything you said. Worker protections do not reduce productivity, this is a typical talking point of employers who only seek to reduce costs of employment, at the expense of employees. Even if it increased productivity, without regulation protecting employees the profits of that increased productivity are all harnessed by the elites who own the capital, and the workers are all poorer because of that. If regulatory capture in labor protections was a thing, the large companies would pressure for strong labor protections, instead of always rallying and lobbying against thoae
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > Worker protections do not reduce productivity To the extent that they protect workers who are genuinely productive, of course they don't reduce the productivity of those workers. But to the extent that they protect workers who aren't genuinely productive (by making them harder to fire, and more generally making it harder to reduce their impact), they do reduce overall productivity. > without regulation protecting employees the profits of that increased productivity are all harnessed by the elites who own the capital If you believe the story that's being told about the last four decades or so, this was happening with regulations protecting employees all over the place. So if those regulations are supposed to be preventing it from happening, they're not working.

diggan 2y ago

That sounds better for the employees since you can see what others at competitors are earning, so you can ask management to either bump you or you'll go offer your time somewhere else.