8 ms·

Poverty and vulnerability seems to cloud the issue a bit. If we take the example of a Hollywood movie where the actors are paid a fixed amount for their work,

by Tycho 13y ago

Poverty and vulnerability seems to cloud the issue a bit. If we take the example of a Hollywood movie where the actors are paid a fixed amount for their work, then I don't think many people would disagree with yummyfajitas' analysis. If the movie bombs, they still got their pay, meanwhile the producers actually lose their capital. So it's not unreasonable that if the movie turns into a smash hit, the producers capture all the upside and the actors just get their fixed pay. When we change the scenario to workers who are not wealthy Hollywood actors, it seems no one agrees with the analysis any more. Even though it's essentially the same relationships and principles at work. Why is this? If a business employs non-wealthy people, do the owners also take on a whole package of social issues beyond the basic contract of employment? Does our judgement change due to pity?

gjm11 13y ago
1. It doesn't seem unreasonable for an employer's attitude to an employee's pay to depend on how desperately the employee needs that pay. This doesn't need to involve pity as such (though it might be indecent not to feel pity, in some cases). If I see you drowning in a lake, then arguably I am obliged to help you even if it takes some time and costs me money (e.g., to get my clothes cleaned afterwards) -- but if I see you in a less desperate situation I might owe you no help of any sort. 2. A movie actor is (I think) generally engaged on a limited-term contract to make a particular movie. That's quite a different situation from a (so-called) permanent employee who is (foolishly or not) hoping to go on being paid for an indefinite period. 3. The real complaint (as I understand it) is not simply "Employees should get a substantial fraction of the large upside if their company has a good year"; it's that it seems a lot of employees are getting neither that upside nor security and stability: they are in big danger in bad years but don't get the big gains in good years. Or, to put it differently, the primary complaint isn't that employees get exposed to a different pattern of risk from employers; it's simply that they are underpaid. 4. As it happens, I think there's a lot to be said for paying movie actors partly in proportion to the success of the movie. (Though I fear that in practice that would turn into a way to underpay them grotesquely, via "Hollywood accounting".) So I don't think I'm guilty of the inconsistency you allege. (Others might be; I don't know.)
- Tycho 13y ago
  I would say the diff between actor and salaryman are superficial: yes the expectations are different but their contracts have the same fundamental property (you do some work, then you get irreversibly paid for it). However I think what's really happening in this debate is that one side is arguing about conditions for individual labourers, and the other about labor in aggregate. The two can lead to very different conclusions. For instance high income tax is good for individuals who benefit from public spending, but it also consolidates the gap between those who already own the wealth and those whose only chance to acquire it was through higher income. So in a sense it's bad for 'the class'. Could probably think of a better example but hopefully you get what I mean.

by Tycho 13y ago

gjm11 13y ago

1. It doesn't seem unreasonable for an employer's attitude to an employee's pay to depend on how desperately the employee needs that pay. This doesn't need to involve pity as such (though it might be indecent not to feel pity, in some cases). If I see you drowning in a lake, then arguably I am obliged to help you even if it takes some time and costs me money (e.g., to get my clothes cleaned afterwards) -- but if I see you in a less desperate situation I might owe you no help of any sort. 2. A movie actor is (I think) generally engaged on a limited-term contract to make a particular movie. That's quite a different situation from a (so-called) permanent employee who is (foolishly or not) hoping to go on being paid for an indefinite period. 3. The real complaint (as I understand it) is not simply "Employees should get a substantial fraction of the large upside if their company has a good year"; it's that it seems a lot of employees are getting neither that upside nor security and stability: they are in big danger in bad years but don't get the big gains in good years. Or, to put it differently, the primary complaint isn't that employees get exposed to a different pattern of risk from employers; it's simply that they are underpaid. 4. As it happens, I think there's a lot to be said for paying movie actors partly in proportion to the success of the movie. (Though I fear that in practice that would turn into a way to underpay them grotesquely, via "Hollywood accounting".) So I don't think I'm guilty of the inconsistency you allege. (Others might be; I don't know.)

Tycho 13y ago
I would say the diff between actor and salaryman are superficial: yes the expectations are different but their contracts have the same fundamental property (you do some work, then you get irreversibly paid for it). However I think what's really happening in this debate is that one side is arguing about conditions for individual labourers, and the other about labor in aggregate. The two can lead to very different conclusions. For instance high income tax is good for individuals who benefit from public spending, but it also consolidates the gap between those who already own the wealth and those whose only chance to acquire it was through higher income. So in a sense it's bad for 'the class'. Could probably think of a better example but hopefully you get what I mean.