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

Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–606 of 606 posts

Re: Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

#601

Post by m0llusk »

myth_drannon wrote: post #128
onion2k wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine there's an opportunity for a startup that let's someone who wants to do a simple job themselves Facetime with a plumber to talk them through the work. No idea if there's any profit in it though.

I'm not allowed to cut a tree in my backyard because it's close to power lines, only licensed arborist. I CAN do it but not allowed, so it's just a legislation not an issue of knowledge.

Trimming trees near power lines is extremely dangerous and can lead to deadly electric shocks even simply operating near power lines. Metal ladders and tools can draw current from lines to ground and to a great deal of damage. Arborists have special training and tools to prevent deadly electric shocks when trimming trees near power lines.

Re: Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

#602

Post by amriksohata »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #324
amriksohata wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or worse the businesses decide to open shop abroad the jobs disappear from the local market

Hence the growing disdain for globalization. It's a race to the bottom to see what country will provide the lowest wages and quality of life for its workers.

Interesting way of looking at it, and capitalism in general

Re: Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

#603

Post by andrewjl »

OJFord wrote: post #503
andrewjl wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bread is fungible, construction workers (or any kind of employee or contractor) much less so.

> Bread is fungible In what society?

If you see two loaves in a store that are basically the same kind, you normally won't think too hard about which one you pick. As mechanical and indifferent as some hiring processes are, they don't approach that level of indifference.

Re: Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

#604

Post by OJFord »

andrewjl wrote: post #603
OJFord wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bread is fungible In what society?

If you see two loaves in a store that are basically the same kind, you normally won't think too hard about which one you pick. As mechanical and indifferent as some hiring processes are, they don't approach that level of indifference.

Okay, that's maybe true. (Although I'd say if they're sufficiently similar I'd probably just base it on price rather than being indifferent.)

But you've added the qualifiers 'in a store' and 'basically the same kind', and it's still not really describing fungibility, is it?

Re: Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

#605

Post by turc1656 »

harrumph wrote: post #452
turc1656 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did mention a pay ethic and you even quoted it - "...basic common sense when it comes to employee compensation and morale." I also indicated that if the OP didn't feel they were being fairly compensated they should have a discussion about it and if the outcome is not appropriate that they should leave, presumably because there is either a mismatch of opinion regarding OP's skill set and what it is worth, or that em…

I think we should not use terms like "common sense" when describing totally uncommon practices. Wages aren't stagnant by accident -- far from it. The constantly repeated, default decision by boardrooms to unlink compensation from productivity and thereby suppress wages is in fact the overwhelming, prevailing "common sense" of the really existing world. This goes hand in hand with the systematic expropriation by owner…

I've taken several days to consider your comment. I believe you are largely correct after giving it some thorough thought. Workers should receive additional compensation for increased productivity. Obviously, they would not receive the entire productivity gain, but they should receive some portion of it. If they can use new technology to create an additional $5 an hour in value, maybe they should receive something like $2 in additional compensation.

Where we probably disagree on the reason, though. To me, it comes down to an individual's overall slice of the monetary pie. Since money is just a representation of value, it's basically just a number inside of a larger system that we utilize. All that matters really is your portion of the whole. Let's use GDP as a gauge. The US has ~18.5T in GDP per year. Let's cut off some zeroes (6 of them) to get some more usable numbers. For a person making $10 an hour, that's about 20k a year, or 20,000/18,500,000=0.108%. If GDP increases 4% in 2 years but their wage only goes up 2.5% that would be 20,500/19,240,000=0.1065%. This means that they now have lost some purchasing power relative to everyone else because their share of GDP has decreased.

Now that's a moral argument, to be sure, because there is still supply and demand for labor that is a dominant for in the labor markets. So if someone else is going to work for $9 an hour, that's going to be a problem. There are many factors at at play.

But thanks for getting me to re-think my position on this.

Re: Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?

#606

Post by harrumph »

turc1656 wrote: post #605
harrumph wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should not use terms like "common sense" when describing totally uncommon practices. Wages aren't stagnant by accident -- far from it. The constantly repeated, default decision by boardrooms to unlink compensation from productivity and thereby suppress wages is in fact the overwhelming, prevailing "common sense" of the really existing world. This goes hand in hand with the systematic expropriation by owner…

I've taken several days to consider your comment. I believe you are largely correct after giving it some thorough thought. Workers should receive additional compensation for increased productivity. Obviously, they would not receive the entire productivity gain, but they should receive some portion of it. If they can use new technology to create an additional $5 an hour in value, maybe they should receive something li…

>But thanks for getting me to re-think my position on this.

I'm equally grateful you considered our conversation.

Worker ownership and worker governance of enterprises, in my view, is the general way forward. I suggest to anybody reconsidering commerce under capitalism take a look at the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation for a living example of super-productive commerce and industry that employs tens of thousands without the baked-in inequality that drives so many social ills.

Cheers!

Post reply on HN