Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preserving inefficiencies for the sake of extracting money is called rent seeking.
Rent seeking is collecting money while adding no economic value. Like landlords.
if you think that then buy a house instead of renting
As unions decline, inequality rises
411–420 of 479 posts
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The former gets the fruit of their labor in full when the job is finished and paid for, the latter is suffering from a systematic exploitation as each time the stock goes up in price (or when dividends are issued) the shareholders get the fruits of the worker’s labor, as opposed to the workers them selves. This is a bit hard to parse. Isn't the developer's work also paid for after each unit of time served. And why…
The difference here is in control. The carpenter has full control on which task they take, whereas the developer hasn’t. A developer is forced to work at a bad product that they know is gonna fail, but the carpenter can refuse to take on a job that they know is gonna cost them more then the customer is willing to pay. For the developer, after their project inevitably fails, it will probably cost them their job, despi…
> This is not true of the developer. The developer might be able to demand more pay, but they are at the mercy of their upper management to relay that to the owners of the business, who might see more value in exploiting the worker for more profit for them selves.
A typical developer at Google makes $200k-$500k. That was enough for me, I didn't feel exploited, so don't come here and tell me that I should feel exploited, I'm sure that even Marx would agree with me that such a huge salary is fair.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither view will do. The company can't succeed without the workers. The company also can't succeed without capital. Both deserve to get a cut of the rewards.
This neglects the reality that loans exist. In an ideal leftist world your local credit union redistributes wealth by collecting pepole’s savings from the community and hands them out as loans for slightly higher interest rate. That interest rate is the “cut” of the rewards. If an enterprise goes bankrupt and is unable to pay back the loan, there is usually some kind of insurance the credit union has to prevent going…
That sounds like a world in which everyone ends up worse off. Maybe it’s more equal, but I value standard of living and opportunity more than equal outcomes.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an intrinsically Marxist framing. Even if inequality is rising, so is wealth overall. That’s what Marx misestimated, although it wasn’t his most grievous error. Poor people in the United States are far richer than rich people of 150 years ago. I am personally willing to accept the he existence of some billionaires if that’s the price we pay for all this wonderful ness.
> Poor people in the United States are far richer than rich people of 150 years ago. There is no material improvement in wealth over the past 20 years, but inequality has grown. Wealth is produced by innovation, and greater concentratuon of wealth will lead to less innovation.
There’s certainly been a technological improvement in which increasing numbers of people have access to the internet and smart phones, with an explosion of information, communication and entertainment.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference here is in control. The carpenter has full control on which task they take, whereas the developer hasn’t. A developer is forced to work at a bad product that they know is gonna fail, but the carpenter can refuse to take on a job that they know is gonna cost them more then the customer is willing to pay. For the developer, after their project inevitably fails, it will probably cost them their job, despi…
> This is not true of the developer. The developer might be able to demand more pay, but they are at the mercy of their upper management to relay that to the owners of the business, who might see more value in exploiting the worker for more profit for them selves. A typical developer at Google makes $200k-$500k. That was enough for me, I didn't feel exploited, so don't come here and tell me that I should feel exploit…
Please note that exploitation here is a technical term from marxism and should not be confused with how this word is commonly used in english as a synonym for oppression. In my native language of Icelandic there is a much nicer word arðrán which literally means “dividend burglary”, “profit burglary” or “stealing the fruits of your labor”. It doesn’t matter how much you personally makes, if someone else is taking money that someone else worked for, that is exploitation of labor.
I hope that clears things out.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not true of the developer. The developer might be able to demand more pay, but they are at the mercy of their upper management to relay that to the owners of the business, who might see more value in exploiting the worker for more profit for them selves. A typical developer at Google makes $200k-$500k. That was enough for me, I didn't feel exploited, so don't come here and tell me that I should feel exploit…
Please note that exploitation here is a technical term from marxism and should not be confused with how this word is commonly used in english as a synonym for oppression. In my native language of Icelandic there is a much nicer word arðrán which literally means “dividend burglary”, “profit burglary” or “stealing the fruits of your labor”. It doesn’t matter how much you personally makes, if someone else is taking mone…
I didn't work for the money others were paid, I was paid the fruits of my labour, others was paid theirs, thinking that I would be worth more than I was paid is just hubris. Then after having worked a few years, getting 25% pay raises every year, I quit and can now easily work on my own projects because I made ridiculous amounts of money.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please note that exploitation here is a technical term from marxism and should not be confused with how this word is commonly used in english as a synonym for oppression. In my native language of Icelandic there is a much nicer word arðrán which literally means “dividend burglary”, “profit burglary” or “stealing the fruits of your labor”. It doesn’t matter how much you personally makes, if someone else is taking mone…
I didn't work for the money others were paid, I was paid the fruits of my labour, others was paid theirs, thinking that I would be worth more than I was paid is just hubris. Then after having worked a few years, getting 25% pay raises every year, I quit and can now easily work on my own projects because I made ridiculous amounts of money.
You might not feel exploited, and maybe you personally weren’t. But collectively you and your coworkers were, or at the very least, you and your coworkers were used to enable exploitation of other workers—within Google, or through Google’s third parties. The only way a shareholder of Google can make money off of Google without contributing any work is by exploiting people that do the work. In the context of distributing the wealth a company creates, who gets what is a zero sum game. And if shareholders are making money without working for it, it must be through exploitation. And given the power dynamics at play. It is the workers that are exploited. If not Google’s own workers, then the workers of the companies that are Google’s paying customers.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you quite understand how the unions work. -in most cases, the employer is able to fire with cause. The union keeps the employer from using layoffs as a weapon. - pay scales reward loyalty and keeps the workplace stable. - without the union, you have almost no bargaining power. The union usually gets a better rate for everyone than any one person could have negotiated. This is in fact the point of collec…
> without the union, you have almost no bargaining power. You absolutely do. The most powerful bargaining power of all: the power of the alternative. It's also called "pay me, or I leave" (most often accompanied by "I have an outside offer"). I exercised this power a few times in my career. I did not need any union to bargain for me.
You're describing a bargaining power that unions have, except instead of "pay me or I leave" it's "pay me or we leave".
Why would you want a less powerful version of the same thing? Even if you don't involve your union, you can still do what you're describing.
You've gained nothing unique by avoiding the union.
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poor people? I think rich techies are crazy - or rather, badly misinformed- not to start a union. Exhibit A of poorly informed: grandparent poster seriously thinking he has more individual bargaining power against trillion dollar corporations than a collective bargaining agreement would. Exhibit B: grandparent poster thinking collective bargaining _must_ entail many aspects like seniority based compensation that are…
> Tom Brady is in the NFL players association. Tom Cruise is in the Screen Actors guild. You think that has anything to do with their compensation? Tom Brady has won how many Super Bowls? Tom Cruise has had how many blockbuster movies? The opposite should be true if unions were the great equalizers, no single actor/athlete would be making hundreds of millions a year and all of them would be making enough to buy a hou…
> The opposite should be true if unions were the great equalizers, no single actor/athlete would be making hundreds of millions a year and all of them would be making enough to buy a house in Beverly Hills.
This makes no sense. Two people that are in unions are doing the thing you say they can't. What in the world?
Re: As unions decline, inequality rises
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The former gets the fruit of their labor in full when the job is finished and paid for, the latter is suffering from a systematic exploitation as each time the stock goes up in price (or when dividends are issued) the shareholders get the fruits of the worker’s labor, as opposed to the workers them selves. This is a bit hard to parse. Isn't the developer's work also paid for after each unit of time served. And why…
The difference here is in control. The carpenter has full control on which task they take, whereas the developer hasn’t. A developer is forced to work at a bad product that they know is gonna fail, but the carpenter can refuse to take on a job that they know is gonna cost them more then the customer is willing to pay. For the developer, after their project inevitably fails, it will probably cost them their job, despi…
If the carpenter is poor and has mouths to feed, he can't pass the task even if he knows it will fail. He needs money. On the other hand google's developer has earned so much money the previous year, he can then quit any time he wants and get a new job with ease. To me it looks like the carpenter is the exploited one.