4 ms·
Technology and automation likely lead to the lion's share in productivity increase. Thus we have seen at least one mode of tech wages that focus on creating hi
by ty6853 1y ago
Technology and automation likely lead to the lion's share in productivity increase. Thus we have seen at least one mode of tech wages that focus on creating higher productivity systems staying strong while many other segments stagnate.
Meanwhile I don't see any evidence education in the past 20 years in the US has yielded a significantly higher quality and efficiency of candidate.
If you want more money all else equal you have to bring something more to the table. If all you bring to the table is being able to use a more efficient machine it's not clear why your wage would elevate rather than the value of the machine (capital) elevating. Merely having as good an education as the guy 20 years ago isn't going to cut it.
- DangitBobby 1y agoI like to think if I employed people, I'd want them to make more money when the company makes more money. It's probably weird to think the entire point of companies, the economy, and society at large is to improve life, though. And I think I'm just slow because I need it spelled out for me how a CEO or the company itself "earned" the gains from automation and productivity tools (that they almost certainly didn't invent themselves) while the employees are just lucky to still be employed.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 1y agoHow would you compete with other businesses’s that either choose to lower prices or increase investment funding due to the equity’s higher ROI? The market works because all actors are buyers and sellers, and when buying, you are seeking the lowest price, and when selling, you are seeking the highest price. If you stop doing that, someone will outcompete you by allocating resources better (absent corruption). It even applies on a household level, where if you spend extra on charity or groceries or whatever, you will have a smaller downpayment to compete for the house you want. Also, generally, employee pay is highly correlate with the employer’s profit margin (outside of healthcare due to heavy government involvement).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- DangitBobby 1y agoIf you have to compete then you have to compete. Let's not pretend that prudent reinvestment of hard-won gains in the face of fierce competition is how wealth inequality has managed to spiral out of control, though. There's econ 101 and then there's reality. Edit: Also looking for how this market theory explains absurd CEO compensation packages in a world where they quite obviously are not worth the price tag.
- ty6853 1y agoI think the problem is in a market, at least theoretically, both parties have to offer some mutually beneficial additional benefit in order to capture additional value. Otherwise one side will reject the agreement, because both parties have to be better off for an exchange to happen.
- nathan_compton 1y agoBut the agreement will be unfair in precise accord with the degree of power imbalance between the parties. Like if you know the president will call in the national guard to break your strike, you'll accept lower wages.
- DangitBobby 1y agoI think it's safe to say there was a period of time where employees were expected to capture a larger proportion of the value from the technology they utilized in the course of their work than they do now, and they did so despite market forces.
- ty6853 1y agoCompanies were definitely as greedy during the 'robber baron' days between the civil war and ~1913 when the market was way less restricted, during which workers saw much greater gains, even in the face of mass violence against worker mobilization. Interesting situation indeed.
- supportengineer 1y agoRegarding your last sentence - you're describing the "class war".
- hnthrow90348765 1y agoThe lack of egalitarian ideals is strictly down to culture among the rich (that is, CEOs, politicians, etc.) and how the country is run. Capitalism is about competition which inevitably leads to minimizing the cost of labor, and includes no inherent safe guards to protect workers other than what skills they might have. This is why unions had to be formed and is why there is the tension between workers rights and companies today.
- nativeit 1y agoCapitalism loathes competition.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoHumans, and probably all animals, loathe competition. Who wants to fight for resources if they don’t have to?
- spwa4 1y agoAs opposed to what, I wonder? Communism or, to put a lesser discussed system in, Mercantilism, use violence to eliminate competition. Sometimes even to the point of war between countries. Is that better?
- charcircuit 1y agoAt least for public companies employees can buy stock in their company to get exposure to the gains.
- IAmBroom 1y agoNow, thankfully, yes. There used to be a high $ hurdle to opening investment accounts.
- sanderjd 1y agoNot if they work for a private company. Arguably, employees should just avoid working for private companies that have no mechanism for employees to participate in their equity. But in practice this is unrealistic for lots of people.
- marssaxman 1y agoInvesting your capital into the same company which pays your salary is the opposite of diversification, no? The advice I've always read is to sell your ESPP shares immediately, thereby realizing the discount percentage, then put the money into VTSAX or some comparable fund.
- charcircuit 1y agoI never said it would diversify. I said that you would be able to make more money when the company makes more money.
- Night_Thastus 1y agoI think you've missed the point. The issue isn't that people want more buying power for the same effort. The issue is that everything they buy has gotten more expensive. When groceries, rent, cars, medical bills, etc all go up but wages are stagnant, people get crushed. Some luxury goods have gone down over time, like electronics. But the essentials have all gotten worse.