
It’s time to balance the power between workers and employers - stablemap
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-its-time-to-balance-the-power-between-workers-and-employers/2017/09/03/b1c9714e-901e-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html
======
pmiller2
Wage slavery is a real thing in America today. I'm in almost the 95th
percentile of income in the US today (although I wasn't always so lucky), and,
if I were to somehow lose my job tomorrow, my first priority would be to find
a new one ASAP, because I wouldn't be able to pay rent after less than 6
months of unemployment. Most people are not so fortunate. Even the most well-
off Americans only have about $164K saved in their retirement accounts [0].
Real wages have been flat for decades [1]. Half of Americans don't have $500
in emergency savings [2].

My employer has nearly 100 employees; I have one employer. The job "market" is
designed to create information asymmetry between me and my employer that
ensures I'm not getting the best deal I can when negotiating for a job. I'm
expected to give a reasonable amount of notice before leaving my job, but no
such expectation generally exists on the other side of the table. I can be
fired for almost any reason, or no reason. When I was hired, I had to sign an
agreement signing away any right I had to ever sue my employer in court for
any reason.

Now, even granted that some of these things are not necessarily going to be
relevant to my particular situation ( _e.g._ I don't really foresee any need
to sue my employer, and I don't think they're going to fire me for no reason
at all), what side of the table does the huge majority of the power lie on?

[0]: [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/how-much-the-average-
family-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/how-much-the-average-family-has-
saved-for-retirement-at-every-age.html)

[1]: [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-
wor...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-
wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

[2]: [https://www.creditdonkey.com/average-american-savings-
statis...](https://www.creditdonkey.com/average-american-savings-
statistics.html#emergency)

~~~
theseus7
The solution is pretty straightforward. Replace all taxes on labor and earned
income with a land value tax. This will increase disposable income of workers
by directly decreasing taxes on wages, by lowering the cost of housing by
disincentivizng speculative land investment, and by increasing the supply and
margin of production of rent-free land, the later of which increases the
bargaining power of workers per Ricardo's Law of Rent. The lack of private
savings can also be addressed by creating a Citizen's Savings account for all
citizen residents over the age of 21, into which a dividend is regularly
deposited raised from natural resource rents.

The supply of land, and the degree to which land has been monopolized, is
still the primary determining factor of wages even in a high-tech economy.

The price of rent for access to land in proximity to capital and dense
concentrations of skilled workers of complementary skillsets determines how
much savings one has to have before they can start a competing business or
work for themselves, and the ease at which people can create a new business
and go into competition with their previous employer determines the fairness
at which equity is distributed in the average firm.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent)

~~~
oh_sigh
Isn't a land value tax punitive to poor people who buy cheap land which then
becomes valuable for some reason?

Let's say I have low cash flow and bought a reasonably priced house in silicon
valley in 1975. Should I basically be forced out of my house in 2010 because a
bunch of ultra wealthy companies opened offices a few miles away?

~~~
throwawaybbqed
The companies are ultra-wealthy because they are producing high value for
society.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Or enclosing the value generated by others.

Because that works too.

------
mirimir
> The central issue in American politics is the economic security of the
> middle class and their sense of opportunity for their children.

Maybe for Mr. Summers, it is. And maybe as well, for liberals generally.

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.

Second, even among those who agree that the economic security of the middle
class is the central issue in American politics, many have been convinced that
rewarding wealthy capitalists is the best strategy.

So it goes.

Edit: Indeed, many middle-class Americans think that they're wealthy, and so
don't care so much about the middle class.

~~~
ryandrake
The article is from a while ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were still
true: 19% of Americans think they are in the top 1% and 20% more expect to be
one day [1]. So a full 39% of Americans either suck at math or actually
believe that by rewarding wealthy capitalists they are actually rewarding
themselves!

1: [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-
hop...](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-over-
self-interest.html)

~~~
mirimir
That is funny :)

Maybe ~20% of Americans are well-enough off that they feel wealthy. But they
have no clue what real wealth is. And indeed, in day-to-day life, it's pretty
much invisible.

Edit: Gotta quote this:

> All of this adds up to a terrain incredibly inhospitable to class-based
> politics. Every few years a group of millionaire Democratic presidential
> aspirants pretends to be the people's warriors against the overclass. They
> look inauthentic, combative rather than unifying. Worst of all, their basic
> message is not optimistic.

> They haven't learned what Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt and even Bill Clinton
> knew: that you can run against rich people, but only those who have betrayed
> the ideal of fair competition. You have to be more hopeful and growth-
> oriented than your opponent, and you cannot imply that we are a nation
> tragically and permanently divided by income. In the gospel of America,
> there are no permanent conflicts.

~~~
yorwba
> But they have no clue what real wealth is.

I think measuring "real wealth" by some relative metric like "top 1%" is
misguided. To me, being wealthy means being able to live a comfortable life
without worrying about your next paycheck.

I'm from Germany, but studying in China on a scholarship. The 1000 euros per
month I get wouldn't put me among the German 1%, but in a country with a lower
cost of living, I spend only half of what I get. When the scholarship runs out
next month, I have a year of runway at my current spending level. That's
wealthy enough for me.

~~~
closeparen
> To me, being wealthy means being able to live a comfortable life without
> worrying about your next paycheck

Americans generally use middle-class to refer to this state. Things are good,
you have a paycheck or two of slack, you can make a healthy retirement
contribution and save a little each month, own (via debt) a decent house and
car, go out to eat a few times a month, not pinch pennies at the grocery
store, etc. Major changes like moving, getting a new car, putting a kid
through college, etc. require some planning, maybe some financing, but are
doable.

Real wealth would be owning a grand house and luxury car, not needing to work
to sustain the same lifestyle (before retirement age; after retirement age
this is baseline for not being poor), ability to self-fund a capital intensive
business, casually owning multiple residences, frequent international travel,
etc. Luxury cars are toys and putting a kid through college is painless. That
kind of stuff.

~~~
arca_vorago
Real wealth is not having debt.

~~~
devonkim
I have no debt, some liquid assets, but still rent. I know I'm better off than
a lot of the country but being in the top n% of income in the wealthiest
country in the world but enjoying little of the amenities besides basic
infrastructure seems difficult for me to think of myself in any way as
"wealthy." Unencumbered is ahead of many but I think I'd far rather have $400k
income (and, more importantly, the social status and connections that kind of
occupation or niche implies) with $1MM in debt than some low six figure income
with much more in common socially with the homeless and nonfunctional mentally
ill.

~~~
fuzzfactor
With the increasing number of the middle class including full-time workers
becoming homeless (especially now in Houston) some homeful people would be
best to become less rejecting of the homeless and/or mentally affected who
lost traction before them. Especially in such a case where it's so obvious
that there but for the grace of god they go.

Regardless of natural disaster or not, the prevailing cutoff line is coming
after your low six-figure income, since there's not much foundation remaining
below that level.

If you are providing shelter or a more extensive domestic environment those
are not functionally very much like six significant figures anyway, but you
knew that.

------
hiisukun
100 years ago in Australia, there was a 'great strike'. It was about a lot of
things, but the straw that broke the camels back was timecards. Workers felt
like management were 'Americanising' labour, and the pressure of worsening or
stagnant conditions wasn't helped by the country being in the middle of
contributing to the war.

Anyway the strike was overall 'a failure', but filling in the outline I've
given above was some wonderful bits of colour and detail to the story that
were on the national radio here in Australia recently. I hadn't heard before -
and while I can't find the radio link just now, a summary is here [1].

I thought it was interesting to note that the issues from 1917 are remarkably
similar and understandable to those in 2017, for employees and employers.

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/100-years-on-the-
great...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/100-years-on-the-great-strike-
of-1917/8748132)

~~~
pattisapu
Interesting.

I'm an American labor lawyer and often find myself thankful when an employer
actually keeps accurate time cards. "Time shaving" and wage theft are so
rampant today and are a significant part of the billions of dollars that
workers lose each year in this country [1]. It's a lot easier to do that when
you fudge the time records, or don't keep any at all.

[1] [http://www.epi.org/blog/wage-theft-by-employers-is-
costing-u...](http://www.epi.org/blog/wage-theft-by-employers-is-costing-u-s-
workers-billions-of-dollars-a-year/)

------
burntrelish1273
Richard Wolff has also been evangelizing co-ops and worker-owned businesses
for some time.

[http://www.rdwolff.com/faq_worker_coops_wdes](http://www.rdwolff.com/faq_worker_coops_wdes)

[https://youtu.be/urCy3UOGgx8](https://youtu.be/urCy3UOGgx8)

~~~
grecy
I don't understand why there are not more co-ops in this world.

In Canada, Mountain Equipment Co-Op (MEC) is the all-in-one kick-ass outdoor
store (like REI). It is a co-op, so you pay $5 for a lifetime membership.

The place does not make a profit. All expenses are paid, all employees earn
their living. At the end of the year, if they accidentally made a profit, they
simply return the extra money to all the members of the co-op as a percentage
of whatever that person spent for the year, thus they make no profit.

This, to me, is brilliant. Customers get what they want, employees get paid.
Win. Win.

Why do we need stores that make profit?

Why do we need banks that make ever-increasing billions in profit?

I imagine a world where banks, Apple, Ford, etc. all worked like this. I want
to live in that world.

~~~
kalleboo
Sweden has quite a few dominant coops. The ones listed here all have history
dating back to between 1899-1931

Around 20% of grocery retail is by co-ops
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kooperativa_Förbundet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kooperativa_Förbundet)

The largest dairy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arla_Foods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arla_Foods)
The second largest dairy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milko_(Swedish_cooperative)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milko_\(Swedish_cooperative\))
The third largest was a co-op until it was sold to a French conglomerate in
2012
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skånemejerier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skånemejerier)

One of the largest housing corporations
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSB_(Sweden)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSB_\(Sweden\))

The largest insurance provider
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksam)
as well as another of the largest ones
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Länsförsäkringar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Länsförsäkringar)

------
Animats
Union, Yes.

The US has weak unions because labor law enforcement is so weak. No
administration has done much about that in decades. 11% of US employees belong
to a union. 32% in Canada. Read "Confessions of a Union Buster" for
background.

In theory, whether to organize a union in the US is entirely up to the
workers. The employer has no say in the matter. Few people even know that.
Employers try hard to maintain that ignorance and keep workers from
organizing.

In many European countries, McDonalds is unionized. The SEIU is trying to
unionize it in the US.

~~~
0xB31B1B
Unions are implemented differently in the US and elsewhere. IMHO the case law
around unions in the US sets up a perverse incentive structure that results in
an antagonistic relationship between capital and labor, ex: Supreme Court
ruling requires that unions protect all of their members from firing, even the
obviously terrible ones, this has resulted in huge inefficiencies for workers
AND capital alike. Other countries like Germany have better union
implementations, such that the union usually has a seat on the board of
directors and is able to better set company policy in a non antagonistic non
zero sum way.

~~~
clarkevans
> Supreme Court ruling requires that unions protect all of their members from
> firing, even the obviously terrible ones

What is this ruling?

~~~
bb611
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_fair_representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_fair_representation)

------
mjevans
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 / organizational locations
        * Education
        * Medicine
    

Maybe private businesses can be more efficient than a not-for-profit
government owned (and run) organization; if so let them actually compete.

~~~
pfisch
> 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 negotiate drug prices,
but our govt run single payer system will definitely be immune from regulatory
capture. Right?

Instead of this single payer fake solution I would much rather hear real
solutions from the left. Such as, no medical service or prescription can cost
more than the average price from a basket of oecd countries. If we could cut
through all the bullshit and just implement that one idea it would solve most
of our healthcare issues.

~~~
ergothus
> why would anyone ever offer a student loan under these conditions?

Are you saying that it's not possible to offer profitable rates on student
loans that could be forgiven in bankruptcy like other debts are? If so, how is
that not saying the same thing as "to fund the education of the successful
requires perpetual funding from the unsuccessful"?

~~~
pfisch
I'm saying why would you extend a massive loan to someone who is broke, has no
credit, and can immediately discharge the debt. They could and many of them
would immediately discharge the entire balance of the loan upon graduation by
declaring bankruptcy.

They don't offer 40k+ loans to people with no credit at any rate.

~~~
hectormalot
There are different ways to do that by redefining the way bankruptcy works.
E.g. Personal bankruptcy could result in 2-3 years of handing over most of
your income to the state (which distributes across the original loan
providers), expect any major assets to be liquidated (e.g. Your house), before
you're considered debt free.

~~~
pfisch
If you just graduated from college with no money and debt how could you have a
house? Also that is currently how bankruptcy works anyway.

>Personal bankruptcy could result in 2-3 years of handing over most of your
income to the state (which distributes across the original loan providers)

That is even worse than how bankruptcy works right now for most debts. There
already is loan forgiveness after so many years for student loans.

Also even if they did offer some faster path to discharging student debt the
interest rate on the loans would go up to handle the increased loss from
defaults. That would not really make the situation better either.

~~~
kalleboo
> If you just graduated from college with no money and debt

Require a guarantor

~~~
pfisch
Then just don't get a student loan at all. Just get a regular loan.

------
nunez
This observation came to a head for me during a conversation with my fiance
about tuition costs.

I went to Stevens Institute of Technology, a private engineering school in New
Jersey. When I started my schooling in 2005, the average tuition, not
including room and board, was a little under $27,000. [1] It is now a little
over $50,000, again, excluding room and board. [2]

I studied Computer Engineering. The average salary for a computer programmer
in 2009 (I didn't graduate until 2010 but had a job starting in 2009) was
$64,036. [3] Today? $79,840.

So despite the average wage for my work increasing by 20%, my school's tuition
went up by __over double that __.

After factoring in rapidly increasing housing costs, it became evident to me
that (a) I'm in a race to increase my compensation before everything else goes
up, and (b) unless our government does something to curb these rapidly
increase college tuition prices, there is a significant chance that unless I
make and save A LOT of money in the next 20 years, my future children, should
we have any, will either not be able to attend the same college as me (or
similar), or they will be in debt for MUCH longer than me.

[1]
[https://books.google.com/books?id=HiS0BrWXz9QC&pg=PA562&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=HiS0BrWXz9QC&pg=PA562&lpg=PA562&dq=stevens+tuition+fees+2005&source=bl&ots=oW-
QuhvUyZ&sig=Y5-Neiinm_MKlQQCcYVgjAHjR0o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAnf_FiYzWAhXDLSYKHfOPCuEQ6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&q=stevens%20tuition%20fees%202005&f=false)

[2] [https://www.stevens.edu/admissions/tuition-financial-
aid/tui...](https://www.stevens.edu/admissions/tuition-financial-aid/tuition-
fees-costs)

[3]
[http://www.worldsalaries.org/computerprogrammer.shtml](http://www.worldsalaries.org/computerprogrammer.shtml)

[4] [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/mobile/computer-programmers.htm)

------
danblick
Software developers are already highly paid with lots of perks. Do they need
unions?

~~~
sillysaurus3
I think the argument goes: We make table scraps compared to the amount that a
corporation rakes in. Yet we're the sole reason they're able to rake in that
amount of money.

Not that I agree with it, but that's an argument.

~~~
ianai
I think we're fully in the "see what little you can pay someone to get them to
do a job" optimization mode. The marginal cost=marginal benefit argument
doesn't seem to apply anywhere.

On the contrary, if you're actively making something (burgers, computers) then
you're usually not paid enough to actually consume those things on a regular
schedule. I think that's a symptom of an emergent caste system.

~~~
BurningFrog
So each Boeing worker should be able to buy their own 787 Dreamliner in any
fair society?

~~~
WaxProlix
Do you believe that to be a reasonable, charitable interpretation of what OP
said?

~~~
BurningFrog
I believe OP repeated a good sounding slogan ("workers should be able to buy
the things they produce!") they had heard, without having spent any thought to
what it would mean in reality.

My example is meant to show that principle is absurd, not that OP actually
believes in that consequence. I admit the point could have been delivered
friendlier.

As for charitability, we are all prone to agree to what fits with what we
already believe without critical thought. This time OP slipped up, many times
it's been me.

~~~
ianai
That's not how I perceived your comment. You took the statement and came up
with another statement and claimed it was a logical extension of the first.
But it was not faithful to the original statement. Nor was that my only point.
You essentially found a logical exploit and dumped the rest of my meaning.
That's violent.

~~~
SmirkingRevenge
Well, there are "reductio ad absurdum" arguments - which attempt to show that
an argument is bad because it leads to absurd conclusions. And as its fancy
latin name suggests, its as old as the ages, and is often a reasonable form of
argument.

~~~
Brotkrumen
The poster "reductio ad absurdum"ed after he "non sequitur"ed. A valid
reductio requires applying the principle of charity first though.

We do need a Latin phrase for the principle of charity!

------
aaronchall
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.

------
ZeroGravitas
One thing I'd been wondering about was how minimum wages interacted with the
obvious power imbalance between low-skill, low-wage workers and their
employers. If I'm right then employers would basically be compelled by
competition to take advantage of their most powerless employees, in the
absence of such legislation.

In the free market ideal, the wages would be getting forced higher than is
ideal by government intervention, but apparently reality hasn't supported this
theory, and one obvious reason to me is that the wages were being suppressed
below their true level due to this asymmetry.

Tangential aside: is this the same Larry Summers that suggested we should ship
toxic waste to 3rd world countries because their lives were worth less? Things
must be getting pretty grim if he's speaking out in favor of unions.

------
blacksqr
If only we could figure out and implement some kind of system where every
person had one equal say in choosing leaders, regardless of wealth or social
position. Then those who were disadvantaged could outvote the privileged few
and elect leaders who would set policies to make things more fair.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
The problem is that there's no one to choose. First past the post prevents
voting for your favorite and party control prevents populist candidates. Trump
broke past but Bernie didn't despite his popularity. Gerrymandering and voter
restrictions disenfranchise and secret $ flows from corporations to astroturf
campaigns. We exist in a mirage of democratic control, vote reform is
necessary.

------
0898
Why doesn't somebody make an app that makes it easy to start (and run) a
union?

~~~
amelius
Could you write down the requirements for this app?

------
simonebrunozzi
Ironic that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Perhaps the election of Trump and the near-election of Sanders showed him and
people like him that current economic practices were creating an unstable
sociopolitical environment. It's in the best interest of the rich to keep
people from revolting.

Edit: To those who are downvoting me, could you please explain why? If there's
a flaw in my statement, I would love to learn it.

~~~
icelancer
Or maybe Larry Summers just wrote this for the newspaper and having
influential people like Summers on the bylines is good, regardless of what he
writes? Why does it have to be a political thing for every op-ed writing?
Bezos isn't hand-approving every single post.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> Why does it have to be a political thing for every op-ed writing?

You're right, but most media companies in the US pretty much act as
spokespeople for one political wing or another. They are all generally very
biased towards the direction of their donors or owners. I also find it
interesting that no(or few) major media outlets were so against big business
until this recent election cycle. Why else would the recent election cycle
trigger discussion on the declining quality of life for the lower and middle
classes?

Or perhaps I am just too pessimistic nowadays. That is why I appreciate the
feedback on my comments.

~~~
icelancer
>>They are all generally very biased towards the direction of their donors or
owners.

Yes, I agree with that. But Larry Summers' article would have been welcome
anywhere, probably even Fox News. He is accomplished like few others, and
having him write for you is good no matter what. It is important to separate
the cases indivdually.

>>I also find it interesting that no(or few) major media outlets were so
against big business until this recent election cycle.

Cases like Uber help for sure, and the income gap is ever-widening. I think
it's just a natural state of being. It couldn't last forever. An opinion of a
significant number of Americans was that HRC/Trump offered us no real
alternative in regards to labor/business reform, and the media is playing that
up after the fact.

I don't think there is anything nefarious going on or anyone trying to get on
the right side of history. I think in large part the media is reflecting what
most Americans are feeling right now: Malaise.

 _(For the record I am upvoting you, I have no idea who is downvoting your
posts.)_

------
jlebrech
maybe companies should have a maximum size, if after a certain amount of they
are still market leader they need to split into two?

------
oh_sigh
Finding a solution to the returns of labor vs capital would essentially solve
the worker v employer phenomenon. (See: basically anything piketty has ever
written).

Right now, labor is double taxed. You are taxed in the form of your time and
mental energy to perform it, as well as on your return by the government.
Accounting for the time tax of labor and putting the combined tax on par with
capital taxation would go a long way to correcting this imbalance.

------
f137
It's 100 years this November since a well-known fix to this balance was
initiated. Anyone wants to repeat it?

------
alaborplatform
i am working on a labor platform to help educate labor as well as provide, and
develop, tools to assist labor in understanding and asserting their rights

[http://www.alaborplatform.com](http://www.alaborplatform.com)

------
jessaustin
I don't disagree with anything in TFA, but a cynical devil on my shoulder is
whispering that one way of discrediting these ideas might be to put them in
Larry Summers's mouth. It would be difficult to select anyone more "talented"
at over-arguing a point until everyone is tired of hearing about it.

------
KKKKkkkk1
Isn't the balance of power between workers and employers in Silicon Valley
massively lopsided in favor of the former? We have companies that are losing
money paying their engineers six-digit salaries. Restoring the balance is the
last thing this place needs.

~~~
jldugger
> We have companies that are losing money paying their engineers six-digit
> salaries.

I assume that's a tactical decision on their part to bootstrap a new company.
A brief analysis I did a few months ago suggests that six digit salaries
aren't bankrupting established companies. The largest SV employers could
arguably double or triple engineer salaries without dipping into negative
salary territory:

Facebook Employees: 18,000 Profit: 11.51B Profit per employee: ~$600,000

Google Employees: 57,000 Profit: 20B Profit per employee: ~$400,000

Apple Employees: 115,000 Profit: 45B Profit per employee: ~$390,000

Microsoft Employees: 114,000 Profit: 17B Profit per employee: ~$150,000

And for comparison:

IBM Employees: 380,000 Profit: 11B Profit per employee: ~$29,000

Wal-Mart Employees: 2.3 million Profit: 13.64B Profit per employee: ~$5,000

And yet we have cartel-like behavior from SV's largest firms agreeing not to
bid up the price of engineering talent not all that long ago.

~~~
hueving
Where are people getting the notion that engineers should be paid whatever the
current profit per engineer is? Engineers are not shareholders.

You can't have it both ways where employees get to take all of the upside of a
business without all of the risks of being an investor. When IBM has a bad
year, would you be okay with clawing back all of the salary paid out that
year?

~~~
maxxxxx
Employees take on a lot of risk. They risk being laid off and they have to put
all their eggs in one basket. They also risk damage to their career if their
company assigns to them work that doesn't look good on resume. In my view
investors have less risk.

~~~
hueving
>Employees take on a lot of risk. They risk being laid off and they have to
put all their eggs in one basket.

That's not a lot of risk. If they get laid off, they don't lose an initial
investment like the shareholders do. If I get laid off today, I will just go
find another job. I don't lose my previous wages.

>They also risk damage to their career if their company assigns to them work
that doesn't look good on resume.

Doing something shitty is entirely the employees choice. If they aren't happy
with the compensation they get for doing that thing, then they should move to
a different company.

~~~
maxxxxx
Most of us live in a world where it's not so easy to just take another job if
the current doesn't meet expectations. In addition you have almost no way tell
upfront if the new job will be any better.

~~~
fuzzfactor
This is by design.

------
ianai
Countries are best off that empower their people: the individual citizens.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
I really don't like the framing of that. Good countries get the hell out of
the way while people use their inherent power of self-determination. If
someone powerful spends their time "empowering" you, it means you had none in
the first place.

~~~
ianai
I was attempting to paraphrase Adam Smith.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part
of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith

That's the context I meant for the word "empower".

~~~
alkonaut
Would you agree that among the best things an individual blue collar worker
can do with that empowerment is to team up with others in a union?

~~~
Caveman_Coder
I'd agree that it is one of the smartest things they could do since they are
selling their labor.

------
randyrand
I don't like or want egalitarianism. No thank you.

~~~
sctb
This amounts to trolling whether or not that was your intention: ample
provocation and a dearth of substance. Please don't post like this here.

