Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 224 posts

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

#201

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

scarmig wrote: post #195
ImSkeptical wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Two points: 1) Someone's getting taxed, somewhere. The question is what we want to incentivize. Working hard for a living? Saving money and investing it to grow the economy? Purchasing food to feed and garments to clothe your family? Trading with people outside the country who make things more efficiently than you can? Or sitting on underutilized land? No matter what, someone's ox gets gored. The key is that it shoul…

> The actual worst case scenario is someone gets a reverse mortgage from the bank to pay property tax with equity from the home, and they end up bequeathing a smaller proportion of wealth to their heirs when they pass.

In other words, a permanent and widespread subsidy that enriches the banking industry at the expense of the public. Don't we have enough of those already?

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

#202

Post by fuzzfactor »

closeparen wrote: post #198
arca_vorago wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real wealth is not having debt.

Nah. Someone with $25k assets and $20k debt is substantially wealthier (i.e. can use their money to accomplish more purposes) than someone with only $5k. Having a major asset (like a house) owned outright might be closer to "real wealth" territory.

Not always true when someone having only $25K in assets is servicing a challenging $20K debt.

Someone else without debt having $5K in cash can sometimes jump at an opportunity that would be completely out of reach for such an encumbered debtor. They usually wouldn't have the $20K debt unless they had already spent all or more than all of their cash at one point, up to approximately $25K already spoken for.

Right on target with a house owned outright until the exponential rise in your pesky property tax gains enough momentum to become an actual threat.

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

#203

Post by scarmig »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #201
scarmig wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: 1) Someone's getting taxed, somewhere. The question is what we want to incentivize. Working hard for a living? Saving money and investing it to grow the economy? Purchasing food to feed and garments to clothe your family? Trading with people outside the country who make things more efficiently than you can? Or sitting on underutilized land? No matter what, someone's ox gets gored. The key is that it shoul…

> The actual worst case scenario is someone gets a reverse mortgage from the bank to pay property tax with equity from the home, and they end up bequeathing a smaller proportion of wealth to their heirs when they pass. In other words, a permanent and widespread subsidy that enriches the banking industry at the expense of the public. Don't we have enough of those already?

I'm confused how you'd consider reverse mortgages a subsidy.

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

#204

Post by jldugger »

hueving wrote: post #143
jldugger wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the fact that many engineers are sharedholders, or bonus structures based on company performance, it's more a metric of the ceiling these companies have for increased wages. Obviously there's a risk premium that shareholders should be compensated for, but at the same time, Google has more or less explicitly structured themselves around their reliable profit stream with no obvious place to reinvest the p…

>The economic principle of wages tied to productivity That's not an economic principle. There are no economic theories that make sense to support it. Why would anyone engage in a transaction where they give away all of the money they would gain as a profit? Labor is a market good like any other. Companies don't pay more than the market rate for bolts just because they are doing well. It's silly to think employees are…

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

I sure you get this, but traditional model is that an employer's willingness to pay is tied to productivity. Not necessarily at a 1:1, as there's risk, capital costs and other factors to consider. But anything meeting the hurdle rate is theoretically fair game, including labor. And on the margins, if an employer wishes to expand their employee base -- because it's profitable to do so[1] -- they'll have to offer candidates a better opportunity than they have now. US unemployment is low, and presumably tech even lower[2].

Over time, we would expect that growing companies raise wage rates in the labor markets they draw from. As you say, no different than any other market, all else held constant, an increase in demand leads to a new equilibrium price. A higher market rate for bolts, so to speak.

> Companies don't pay more than the market rate for bolts just because they are doing well.

Well, many clearly have bonus programs tied to overall corporate welfare. I think we're talking past one another. I'm suggesting the market rate could be higher, and that the demand side potential limiter of wages -- profitability of large labor market buyers -- doesn't seem to be a factor. You're pointing out that the supply side is equally important, and well, duh.

And to bring the discussion back to the comment I was responding to originally, the fact that startups have to compete with established profitable firms for talent doesn't explicitly mean employees have too much bargaining power.

> Even if companies have a wide gap where they could compensate more, the upward pressure will not exist if there are enough qualified employees to fill the positions at a lower wage.

Certainly, the fact that they chose to secretly form a cartel doesn't support the 'flooded with qualified candidates' position. That's a lot of risk to take on (and eventually be slapped on the wrist for) if there's no upside.

[1]: https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/ [2]: https://ycharts.com/indicators/unemployment_rate

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

#206

Post by mirimir »

kilotaras wrote: post #117
mirimir wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't "enter the top 1% at least for a year". To be part of the 1%, you at least have enough capital to live off interest indefinitely. Indeed, enough for your children to live off interest indefinitely.

It seems like you're talking about wealth and GP is talking about income.

Yes, I've been talking about wealth. I mean, I've said "wealthy" a few times :)

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

#207

Post by mirimir »

coldtea wrote: post #136
mirimir wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what else there is to say. Realizing what's going on doesn't accomplish much. I mean, what's going on has been obvious for decades.

Well, the majority still doesn't seem to get it. And even those who feel it instictively, often can't express it well.

Right, and when you try enrolling people, you get tarred as negative, divisive, a communist, anti-American, etc. etc. etc.

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

#208

Post by mirimir »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #127
icelancer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>But there are at least a couple problems. First, many Americans are apparently convinced that some other issue is central in American politics. Maybe it's threats from foreigners. Or from Satan, or some proxy of his. Or perhaps, it's losing their guns. Or whatever. This is very much by design. The state and controlling money interests are happy if people are complaining about guns, weed, LGBT rights, neo-Nazi march…

I'm confused by your dichotomy. Isn't the war on drugs an issue that affects economic insecurity and/or civil liberties? Don't LGBT-rights affect economic insecurity and/or civil liberties? Don't people waving Nazi banners have manifestos that directly affect economic insecurity and/or civil liberties of those they target? Is it just because they don't affect you directly that you've mentally put them in the "distrac…

Those are complaints about specific issues and outcomes.

The inquiry at hand touches on the fundamental dynamics of the system that those issues and outcomes occur in. How people get manipulated into favoring the interests of the wealthy, over their own.

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

#210

Post by tiggybear »

pfisch wrote: post #50
mjevans wrote: post #30

Things that could actually be done to make for a more level playing field: * 'Single Payer' healthcare (tax everyone for basic healthcare) * Allow all kinds of debt to be discharged via bankrupcy * Have the government complete as (several) providers in all 'basics'. The last one includes (some of these are already utilities): * Water * Sewer * Power * Transport (of all kinds, including last mile data) * Housing / org…

> Allow all kinds of debt to be discharged via bankrupcy Credit would dry up overnight and interest rates would go through the roof on many loans. Also why would anyone ever offer a student loan under these conditions? >'Single Payer' healthcare (tax everyone for basic healthcare) We are about to have net neutrality repealed over the objection of everyone except ISPs basically. Medicare isn't even allowed to negotiat…

What are you talking about, discharging student loans would be great! Then banks would likely have to rethink how much money we are handing over to 18-year-olds.

Less frivolous money floating around and I bet we see university tuition dropping pretty substantially.

Post reply on HN