It’s time to balance the power between workers and employers

> Sure an employer could pay less than the union rate by why wouldn't the worker go to a union shop instead

They couldn't. They would be blockaded. Unions demand that all shops pay union rate, regardless of whether employers of the other shop are happy to not be union. So unions decide rates for all employers and all employees.

This is by design.

Geez, Larry, that's a simplistic view of workers.

What should be the proper expectations for someone entering the workforce?

Is everyone actually equal?

Certainly not.

Some earn qualifications to do various types of "Knowledge Work" and others don't.

Some will take smart risks, work hard, create value, build capital, and be able to employ others. Others take dumb risks, create little value, and go from personal bankruptcy to personal bankruptcy.

And still others will take their qualifications and work for large companies or organizations, and get used to not taking on any risks. They put in their time, create marginal value, and go home.

If they're not earning what they think they deserve, they can take their complaint to the marketplace, line up interviews, put their best face forward, and see if they can convince an employer to see it their way.

I'm disappointed in Larry's pandering to the "I'm a victim" mentality. We need more people with an "I can do anything" mentality.

This seems antithetical to the concept of ownership. If it's my house, why do I have to give it up just because someone with more money wants it? Why should my taxes go up, just because people value my property at an increased rate? Property taxes are supposed to fund the services provided by the local government, not evict poor people for the benefit of the rich.

You suggest that buying a house that people want is like winning a lottery ticket. That ignores the possibility that you bought your house as an investment, because you recognized the potential of a neighborhood, or that you were responsible (in part) for building the value of the neighborhood. Setting those possibilities aside, being rich is a matter of luck too. Your parents were well off, you happened to study the right thing at college, get involved with a startup at the right time, or were even born with the genetics and upbringing to generate a high iq. That's all luck too. Why should the rich person's luck be rewarded by forcing the poor to give up their home and move somewhere worse?

>Why would anyone engage in a transaction where they give away all of the money they would gain as a profit?

Companies still fail to profit on some transactions whether intentionally or not. Probably not sustainable except for a non-profit corporation.

Even giving away part of the money does seem to be so much less common that it is understandable for there to be not much remaining general perception that it occurs any more at all.

But generousity can span the complete spectrum from compassion to empowerment to downright charity all the way to absolute philanthropy.

Of course greed has its own spectrum too based around money-motivated indivduals having very little worthwhile to offer while also having very little interest in anything else. This should be able to be completely avoided by truly productive operators, whether capitalists or employees.

But leaving money on the table can be very revealing about the generousity or greed of the other party. There should be enough to go around that you should be be able to avoid cutthroat negotiations especially when relative to the stronger party what you are leaving on the table amounts to table scraps for them.

If you blink and someone rich as hell makes it disappear faster than a common thief could rob you I would consider that a bad sign.

>Companies don't pay more than the market rate for bolts just because they are doing well. It's silly to think employees are any different.

If a hardware company can truly afford to pay more than the market rate for components, and no one else is doing it, many times they should be able to gain a competitive advantage by leveraging the generousity to their suppliers into a much more productive and/or higher quality supply chain. For a very small premium on top of your minimum component cost you can virtually double the resources your suplier has to work with on your behalf, all they need to do is leverage it back in your favor and everybody wins.

It is silly to think employees are any different.