Isn’t this roughly the same order of magnitude as many Google developer salaries? If so, how much more expensive can any employee be before he is too expensive to employ?

So the answer is they can afford to pay 300,000 more before the employee is too expensive (based on this comment anyway)

> Alphabet Inc's revenue per employee grew on trailing twelve months basis to a new company high of $ 2,143,353

[0] https://csimarket.com/stocks/GOOG-Revenue-per-Employee.html

Edit: Then you have to factor in the free breakfast/lunch/dinner, buses, electric car parking and the fact all my Google friends seem to rarely work > 40hrs per week.

That being said, all the 'grunt' work at Google is done by contractors, who are paid far less and while they get the free food they do without things like PTO and Sick time.

Yes. This is the correct way to look at it.

Another point I don't see so many people making here is it's about more than just raw compensation. A lot of people at Google don't like some of the things the company has sprawled out into doing now, e.g. war and surveillance tech.

A union is about creating some collective agency so labor can get what it wants, instead of being led around by the nose all the time by managers and owners who are motivated only by profit (or are at least not obliged to consider any interest, economic or moral, that laborers might have).

A union would give some strategic agency to labor--that is, the people who do all the work--at Google. If a majority does not want to make war robots anymore or whatever, they can assert their agency and get what they want, and stop making war robots or whatever.

I don't think the "earnings per employee" metric entitles employees to anything.

This is simply about improving the power differential between management and labor. If that means more money, so be it. It may well not. It might be more about working conditions or projects.

I guess my question to you is why do you demand democracy in government, but accept authoritarianism at work no questions asked?

I am not OP, but I’d say the reason authority is acceptable in a managed organization (not necessarily for profit - any managed organization whether the military, or NGO, or business, or charity) is because it ultimately has a narrow function: either fulfilling a mission, or increasing the wealth producing capacity of the organization.

Democracy at that granularity is somewhat irrelevant: either you’re doing the things (objectively measured), or you are not. Voting doesn’t lead to better policy decisions, just freer ones.

Of course the best performing companies aren’t managed in an “authoritarian” manner in the usual sense of strongman rule, because one person (or even a small group) doesn’t have all the answers. Labor/management collaboration and recognition of the importance of human capital is essential. This is why management doesn’t have as much power as it used to in modern industry: it is dependent on human capital retention in its labor force, which is very expensive to replace (far more than just skilled labor).

Collective bargaining becomes less about power disparity (when labor can make as much money elsewhere and management needs labor more) and more about pressure on systematic policies that are difficult to change without sustained external pressure: pay disparity, bonuses to sexual harassers, etc.)

At the bigger picture, life is a lot bigger than missions or profit, and democracy is essential. (Unless one’s mission is to own the libs, then I guess democracy isn’t so important)

For example, if we take this to it's logical conclusion and look a work culture where your co-workers decide how much you get paid, go look at Valve and see how that works out for them: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-v...

There's really no great solution to this problem as everyone wants more money. Either it's workers vs. management or workers vs. each other.

Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave.

That's an absurd take because your boss suffers no consequences and you do.

It's not about fair, it's about exercising the power you have.

Besides, each part of the country is someone's property, but government gives you a say anyways. I would counter that the equivalent would be saying "why should anyone vote? why bother changing things? if you don't like your country why don't you go find a different one." We don't tend to accept that argument in government, why accept it in private enterprise?

Exercising one's power - sure, employees can do that, and I support that. I just don't think they should deserve special protections and rights for doing that.

If I had an employee and they would tell me "I think your management is shit and I want to make the rules now", I would like to be allowed to fire them.

Did you consider your management may be shit and maybe the person should make the rules now, not you? If you were harassing them, for instance, or bullying them, they may have a point and your single point of control over the enterprise may be harmful not just to the worker but to the company.

Just because you would like to fire them doesn't mean you should, as after all, the fiduciary duty is to the company and not to you personally.

That is specifically the value that the union would provide in this case.

If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions.

With unions, in the end you have courts decide on economic decisions. That's bullshit.

Unilateral control over a business's destiny can doom it if the leadership is making poor decisions even when the rank-and-file oppose them. It's all easy to say the company should simply go to ruins but why should it? What if the good or service is solid, should the customers and the market suffer because the failing company has deprived them of it? Should the workers be punished because they had insufficient leverage to oppose those decisions? Should a ton of money and effort be wasted for an apparently pointless enterprise? If we live in a society that seeks to maximize life expectancy, and if corporations are people, why should we not seek also to prevent avoidable business failures, at least for those enterprises that are building useful products?

> If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions.

Feel free to do that in a company of 1. As soon as your company exceeds 1 person, you lose the absolute right. You lose the right when your decisions impact the livelihood of those around you. It doesn't drop to zero instantly but it is attenuated as the company grows.

If you work for a company and you feel they are making bad decisions and perhaps your job is in peril (because the company may go down), it is high time to look for a new job.

And again, who then decides what is or is not a bad decision? Courts will get to decide on economic decisions. But lawyers have studied law, not economics. How does that make sense?

Someone you hire to redo your kitchen isn't employed by you, they're employed by their employer, where everything we talked about makes sense. That's why there's a distinction between an employer-employee relationship and a contracting relationship.

They of course get a say in how your kitchen is done: if it's not up to code, or dangerous, they absolutely have a say. And frequently. When I redid my kitchen my GC pointed out all these things to me and modified I my plans.

> If you work for a company and you feel they are making bad decisions and perhaps your job is in peril (because the company may go down), it is high time to look for a new job.

You're re-stating how it is today, but there's no reason it need to be this way, and it fails to meet the fiduciary duty to the company and its shareholders.

> And again, who then decides what is or is not a bad decision? Courts will get to decide on economic decisions. But lawyers have studied law, not economics. How does that make sense?

You don't need a law degree to know harassment is wrong. In fact mandatory training is part of your, wait for it, fiduciary duty. You don't need a degree to recognize bad management.

Of course they can have opinions or refuse to do things in certain ways. But they can't force you to have a pink wall color, or other things. At most, perhaps if the see something dangerous or illegal in your kitchen, they may have a duty to do something about it.

Likewise, an employee can refuse to do things by simply quitting the job.

Harassment: again, quit your job, apart from that, general laws about harassment should apply, independent from you being an employee or not.

"fiduciary duty" - where does that come from? Why does somebody suddenly have a duty to take care of you? I am self employed. Why do you get people to have the duty to take care of you, but I don't? Who should have the duty to take care of me?

Suppose you pay me to renovate your kitchen.

Now what is your duty towards me? Is it now your duty to see that I earn a living wage and have job security forever? All just because you simply wanted a new wall color in your kitchen?

> Of course they can have opinions or refuse to do things in certain ways. But they can't force you to have a pink wall color, or other things. At most, perhaps if the see something dangerous or illegal in your kitchen, they may have a duty to do something about it.

You're not their employer, you're contracting their employer.

> Harassment: again, quit your job, apart from that, general laws about harassment should apply, independent from you being an employee or not.

No thanks, that's an objectively worse world.

> Why do you get people to have the duty to take care of you, but I don't? Who should have the duty to take care of me?

Because that's what running a business is. Since you're self employed you have that responsibility to look after yourself.

> Now what is your duty towards me? Is it now your duty to see that I earn a living wage and have job security forever? All just because you simply wanted a new wall color in your kitchen?

Nope, that's their employers duty.

Unions are to protect the interests of employees that have no bargaining power. Big tech employees don’t need this. I can, however, see tech employees using their shares and influence to bargain for a board seat. I think Germany does this.

Ultimately it comes down to the relationship white-collar employees have with their employer. I work at a Big Tech co. I see myself as a hired-gun who is full-time because the taxes and benefits are easier to manage. I don’t care one bit about the company’s mission or values or whatever. I write code, they give me money. Either one of us can dissolve this contract anytime.

Because employment is a freely associated business relationship. I don’t demand democracy in my business relationship with in-n-out when I order a burger nor do I demand democracy when a company pays me for some software development.

I do demand democracy from a government that makes laws I cannot opt out of and controls the courts which enforce all disputes in my life.

Even the largest companies in the world can be avoided by someone who doesn’t want to do business with them. The same is not true of the government.

> Even the largest companies in the world can be avoided by someone who doesn’t want to do business with them. The same is not true of the government.

There's still the right of exit, as the libertarians call it. One can switch citizenships, or choose to relocate themselves to the few remaining frontiers where governance is minimal. Changing one's residence can be very difficult, but how is changing employment any less so?

I have no say in what’s on their menu. Contractors negotiate but I can’t force them to do anything with a vote like I can in a democracy.

> One can switch citizenships, or choose to relocate themselves to the few remaining frontiers where governance is minimal.

Not without moving and significant impact to life. In all but company towns (which are basically non existent now), it’s trivial to not have any meaningful relationship with a particular business.

Personally I think the category "employee" should be forbidden. It is a pure social construct. Why is anybody entitled to be an "employee" and bitch about "authoritarians"?

Everybody is an entrepreneur. If you have nothing, you sell your body and work hours. But that's just a contract like every other contract.

In any case, if those workers don't like the authoritarians, they are free to start their own companies. Then they get to call the shots.

Yup, and I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily.

Of course they're authoritarians, you do what your boss says or you get out. That's authoritarianism. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad or ill suited to the task, necessarily.

Singapore is authoritarian, and I'd say things are working pretty well there.

Don't know where you are, but in the US, the category of employee has different tax implications for both the individual and the employer. In addition, depending on the industry and role, employee status is often correlated with significantly better benefits.

So? Social constructs have a lot of teeth in the real world, and always have. Wishing them away won't have any effect.

> I'm saying there should be no special benefits for employees

So are you arguing that those benefits (i.e. health insurance) should be universal? Or are you making the argument that only those in a position to pay should have access to those things?

However, to address your question more directly, contractors are employees as well. It's not the job site's responsibility to provide health insurance, it's their employers. Contractors still have employers, you know.

This is true for vendors, but direct 1099 contractors are self employed.

In your terms then, just let everybody be self-employed and contract them, rather than employ them. That's the same result I want, that people are responsible for themselves and making a contract with somebody to do some work for you doesn't come with any additional baggage. Just plain money for work.

This is a fake world. In the real world there is history, capital and labor, and politics which is an expression of the unavoidable, built-in antagonism between the two. We don't all own an equal share of the means of production and just sit around issuing contracts to each other all day.

Do you understand that the econ 101 libertarian world of homo economicus rational agents is fake and we live instead in the real world with its institutions and conflicts?

Property that you can use to produce value beyond itself through workers' labor is capital.

Suppose you had a robot. Would that robot be labor or capital? Assume the robot has the same capability for work as you.

At the end of the day it is a machine, so "capital". Likewise you own your body, it is your capital.

Replacing your workforce is much harder than you make it out to be. All the institutional knowledge, the entire stack, how things fit together, how the tools are built, run, used. All that leaves with you.

You are likely right that this union, at this juncture doesn't have much say. I'm speaking more about unions in general, and this does feel like the thin edge.

IMO this isn't the highest value proposition place to unionize, that would be video games.

Absolutely correct.

This is an IS/OUGHT distinction. Who cares what labor "should" do under the employer's ideology. Not too surprising they want us to think of ourselves as equal players making fair contracts with each other, while one side holds the entire world in their hands.

Since we're not out in the streets starving we're supposed to shut up and be thankful, no matter what, because the ruling ideology says they've given us enough (money as a wage, though little other power). All the crying about "contracts," "greed," "entitlement," etc is just pure ideological smokescreen trying to get you not to notice the obvious, fundamental conflict between worker and owner. They want us to look at a long running historic power struggle and see something other than a power struggle so we won't fight for ourselves. Ridiculous.

It's hard to square that kind of return only benefitting shareholders. You'd be hard pressed as an employee to get a 3% raise or whatnot to keep up with inflation, or you'd have the call center people making pennies, or micromanaged down to the second, but over a milkion per employee was earned.

There is a certain point where one has to stop and reevaluate the nature of the value transfer going on. That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat, but at the first opportunity for equity holders, dropped the floor out by sellout. Not that I'd want to go back given the business model but it does lead to somber reflection and a heartfelt contemplation of tge advantaged position held by the middle-man.

Presumably you were paid for your services. If you were unhappy with the pay, you should have renegotiated or changed jobs.

I hope you didn't intend it, but the comment comes across as critical and judgmental. The comment doesn't show that you are curious about the broader context.

Would you consider thinking about this from a different perspective? For example, try thinking and asking about what history and experience underlies this. In my view, someone who writes "That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat" has a story to tell.

Think about this possibilities: comments are with real people, not abstractions. Every comment brings the opportunity to get to know someone's situation and experience.

I think unions exist specifically to help employees in their struggle to be greedy against a greedy boss or shareholders.

Do you work harder in a partnership where you get 50% or as an employee making 1% of your value?

Has corporate greed harmed its own profits and innovation by failing to adequately pay its employees?

I think greed is good to a point, then it becomes detrimental to self and society.

I mean it is possible that shareholders will work harder. But that is not an argument for unions.

Also, some employees are people like cooks or janitors. Will they really work harder, and what would that even mean? What if they just do their jobs? Does a janitor at Google really deserve more money than a janitor somewhere else? What makes them the "chosen ones"? Just lucky to work for a successful company?

Google makes a ton of money off of each employee, and could probably afford it.

https://csimarket.com/stocks/GOOG-Revenue-per-Employee.html

Google, like much of Silicon Valley, regularly puts forth the messaging that it represents the future, not only in terms of technology but in terms of society. ("Making the world a better place." "Don't be evil.") Forward-thinking often lends itself towards democratization, and of personal empowerment. So if Google wants to portray itself as futuristic, and its employees so lucky to be working for such a futuristic organization, then it would follow based on their own company line that janitors at Google might be entitled to more money at more traditional, hierarchical, less worker-empowering companies.

If Google didn't want their employees to set fires, then maybe they shouldn't taught them them the Promethean secret. Perhaps tech companies should cease pretending to be so much nobler than every other traditional form of business. The people running Google created this culture.

True about Google creating that culture themselves, I don't pity them. I just reject the sentiment in general.

Together they can get more of it.

Simple as that.

There is a point of view framed in things being equitable too. The motivations are more broad, balance of society, etc...

Then again, the members may simply need more too.

Costs and risks relative to income can change, or are not well balanced. This is a standard of living, needs argument.

What differentiates it from greed is the fact than an answer can come from either side of the equation. Lower costs and risks can work the same as more compensation does.

None of this, nor my earlier comment speaks to whether greed is good or bad. It can be, or not and context matters.

The problems with it become apparent when you realize that the standard isn't applied everywhere and is really impossible to evaluate fairly, so the conclusions are derived from personal ethics and concepts of "fairness" instead.

As an example, "they can afford it" is often used as an argument in favor of higher taxes on "the wealthy" (whatever that means), yet nobody says "you can afford to pay starbucks more for your coffee". You could have certainly afforded to pay more for your car or house or macbook, so why didn't you if "you can afford it" is the bar? Likewise many SV tech workers could "afford" to take pay cuts, but nobody's arguing that - why not, if "you can afford it" is the measure?

Depends on how you measure the profit. "Profit per employee" is an abstract measurement and for most people has little bearing to what they themselves do daily. Just because a company's profit per employee happens to be $x doesn't mean you personally generated $x - you could have generated a lot more, or perhaps been a net cost instead (projects fail and get cancelled all the time). You could make an argument that if you build a wildly successful feature you should get a big share of the profit, but only if you take a pay cut when things go poorly. Who wants that? This already happens to an extent in big companies btw, people on successful projects get promoted and more cash & stock so in a way they are sharing in the success.

> And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve, it's a bit of an intuitive step.

This is just another way of saying "they can afford it", which I discussed previously.

Instead of:

>And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve...

A majority of Americans face cost and risk exposure that exceeds their income. This state of affairs is unnecessary, and unacceptable. I would also argue it is lowering our general standard of living, ability to compete globally, and is expensive, due to the general savings associated with cost and risk prevention or management being significant compared to dealing with one or both post fact.

The discussion becomes about ending the unnecessary and undesirable mismatch between income and cost and risk exposure. It also centers on needs, leaving wants for a later time.

When this frame is in play, few people actually care how wealthy corporations are, margins, cash, or any of it really.

What they do care about is whether their income makes sense. Is the product of their labor, assuming they can even find jobs right now, appropriate given their cost and risk exposure?

It also becomes about "they can't afford it." And a majority of the nation can't. This is true for more Americans every year for decades now, and that all adds right up.

Today, the numbers are hard to ignore. COVID escalated things too. Not helpful.

No matter what any of us actually thinks is equitable, market rates, or any other thing, the hard fact is those costs and risks come due.

Someone pays or people die, suffer losses, harm. And those things happen because "They can't afford it." And for any given person, there are only so many labor hours available too.

Until trends change, and material improvements happen, the number of people as well as their zeal to improve will only grow.

People in this scenario really don't have options. If they did, we would not be having these kinds of discussions, nor see the ongoing escalation of them as we are today.

But we are having them, and they are escalating.

To be perfectly clear, some of this discussion is about people whose cost and risk exposure is well beneath their income. That is a wants discussion. Nothing wrong with wants, nor people getting after them however they can.

That is also not inclusive.

Very large numbers of people face costs and risks that exceed their income, and that is a needs discussion. There is a lot wrong with needs being unmet. That is the unacceptable and unnecessary part too.

Both should be represented in these labor discussions, and often they are not.

What remedy makes sense?

One idea was all this growth, innovation, wealth accumulation was supposed to make it cheaper to live, exist and show up for work.

That has not happened.

Cost and risk exposure exceeds income for most people. Sure, there are ways to manage it cost wise, but risks, and in particular, medical risks have grave consequences.

So how do we make it cheaper to live? How do we reduce risk exposure?

Or, maybe that is simply not possible to do.

How do we match income to costs and risks then?

Either will work. Higher income or lower costs and risks. Could be a combination too.

Which is it?

Notably, however it goes, success means far fewer people will actually care about wealthy corporations and such because they have a reasonable life to live and are quite happy to live it.

Ultimately, capitalism drives greedy behaviors in everyone either by choice or by necessity. At some point if you don’t adopt similar behaviors to the greedy, you will be taken advantage of, guaranteed. One of the flaws of this system is that competition is what props it up and gives it stability, so everyone has to play the optimization game as much as the most optimal are optimizing, otherwise they're 'losing' in our economic system, relatively speaking.

So yes, it's the same optimization like behaviors Google and other giant businesses in the capital ownership class are utilizing. Are the motives different (greed, survival, sense of 'fair' compensation)? Maybe, maybe not, but if you don't play the game it doesn't matter because you're being taken advantage of and the state will only decline.

I for one applaud Google employees pushing this and hope they can set a precedent for the entire industry. There is widespread rampant abuse in tech no one talks about or just ingore and it's often waved away because '...but money' and employment mobility. None of these fix the underlying problems and are often merely excuses made to allow abuse to grow and fester.

If a person is happy with their salary, are they really being taken advantage of? Just because they could perhaps get a better salary, doesn't mean they are forced to go for it. I suspect such cases are also rarer than one might think. I would expect most people to occasionally check their market value.

"greed" is just a negative way to frame it. Ultimately, striving for optimal outcomes is what stabilizes systems and makes them healthier and more efficient. Competition is the only known way to ensure fair prices. Every other approach can and will be gamed (corruption), but you can not fake prices.

It's also all nice to talk about being social, but I think many employees are less happy in reality when they find they have to compensate for their unproductive colleagues and even get less pay. That gets people riled up quickly in the real world.

Who cares what you think they're "entitled" to?

If workers simply choose to monopolize, of course they can do that. Of course laws against monopolies in general should then also be abolished, though.

You can not be in favor of unions, but opposed to monopolies, as unions are also monopolies.

In that sense, no, I don't care what they feel entitled to - there should just be no obligation to give them what they feel they are entitled to.

I'd wager that most unionization supporters at Google also support high taxes, a social safety net, and widespread unionization so other laborers can capture more of their own output.

I suppose they could try outsourcing again/more and see how that works out.

That is not a fair framing. Labor is not the sole cause of profit. Imagine a company that spent billions to automate every process requiring only a single human to push a button every 10 minutes to produce its output. This company would be making "billions per employee", but it wouldn't make sense to pay that employee billions for that job.

So it is absolutely a fair framing to state "why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?". If their labor produces capital which produces profits, why are those profits not fair game to bargain over?

In your example, it wouldn't make sense to pay the one remaining employee all of the profits, but it would have made perfect sense for all the employees who produced the perfectly automated factory to negotiate for a share of the profits.

if they were employees, they would've been paid compensation for making such automation. Unless they are a shareholder (either by investing initial capital, or by negotiated compensation in the form of equity), they are absolutely not entitled to any profit from their output.

We allow infinite returns to "shareholders" long after their risk has been reasonably rewarded. Why should we?

yes - because it didn't work any other way. Look at how communism fared? Tell me a way to incentivize people to invest their capital any other way?

Not all capital is the result of labor. Economists put around a third of modern capital to be the result of labor, around a third from leveraging capital, and around a third created by technology.

Labor, investment, and technology all drive new capital creation.

Labor. The labor of knowledge workers, which is what software engineers are called by economists ...

Where does Labor come from? From being taught skills - and that took capital to train someone before their labor could add value. All pieces are interrelated, and modern economies cannot work by ignoring that all pieces are needed.

>The labor of knowledge workers, which is what software engineers are called by economists

And those knowledge workers did their labor with zero capital investment before by an employer (or themselves)? Computers, tools, infrastructure all were provided so the knowledge worker could work, and those pieces required capital before the knowledge worker could produce labor.

I have hard time understanding why so many people cannot accept that capital is a valid and necessary input to creating things, including creating more capital, which can then be invested in yet further productive pursuits.

The first unit of technology was the product of labour and capital.

The first unit of capital was the product of land and labour.

If you operate recursively until the first unit of capital and the first unit of technology you end up finding that all value is the product of land and labour.

There are certainly a great many economists that agree with this definition. Actually, a famous economist gave a talk at Google that made this exact point!

That's simply untrue. When a stock tanks, billions in value is lost. When a stock surges, billions can be gained. That sudden change is not the product of labor, nor the destuction of labor, but a capital multiplier from belief.

Also, arguing that since the first of any process happened in some manner implies that everything later in the process is created the same way isn't true.

>There are certainly a great many economists that agree with this definition

A great many are Austrian school, and would argue things like this, but this is overall a tiny fraction, and none are among the world's top economists. Do you claim the majority or even more than a small fraction of economists would agree with this definition?

>Actually, a famous economist gave a talk at Google

Name?

If what you're arguing for is the Labor Theory of Value [1], which it sounds like, it's widely and almost universally discredited. Every model macro model I can think of creates value in the manner I described above. Some intro examples [2]

Here's another take hitting more modern economics [3]. The "land and labor" is an ancient and not very tenable argument from this modern viewpoint.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomic_model

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production

But ultimately, that capital came solely from labour and natural resources. If you follow the chain of value, you invariantly end up at labour and nature, because those are the only two things that can actually create value from nothing else.

And no, this isn't the LTV. Read the comment carefully. Even if you admit that capital can create value, the capital still had to come from somewhere, and ultimately that somewhere is labour.

I think the argument can be boiled down to, “What is an army without soldiers? Or workers to maintain the robots?”

There are definitely sectors of the industry (such as manufacturing or insurance) where capital and automation drives value generation, but Google is in the business of writing software, which isn't really automatable.

I do think Google has good engineers, but they are really not that indispensable

I think this is a decent thought experiment for ownership of an AI sufficiently good at a hard and profitable problem. Should that company be able to collect those billions forever even if they no longer have to do any work?

All that money spent on automation paid for labor, who has an interest in the fruits of said labor.

Collective labor is one way to secure an equitable share of that fruit.

Also, someone has to pay for that output. How exactly does that happen when people lack income?

Fact is that company so automated needs sales, maintenance, innovation and all the stuff needed to endure and compete over time.

If they are not paying labor, their product would be devalued quickly, and or they would experience increasing trouble over time.

The ones who know how to deal with that have awesome position and would expect to be compensated handsomely.

which means more people can afford said product. Automation is increasing productivity and output efficiency.

There are two basic outcomes regarding labor:

One is to reduce labor and ride on productivity / efficiency.

The other is to work differently, better. Head count may or may not change.

In terms of which is better, there are strong arguments either way.

Everything costs something.

The first scenario is easy. Margins go up, labor costs go down. However, cost of change, maintenance, quality, business expansion may carry much higher costs and risks too.

In the second scenario, margins likely increase, but not as dramatically. People are free for other work, training, to innovate, etc...

Lots of ways this can all play out.

And that devaluation does mean NOT making billions per employee too.

Why not?

Why should it go into the shareholder's pockets instead of the people who actually do the work and create the value? What if the people actually working were to, I dunno, seize the means of production or something?

To be clear while I understand that there are many reasonable objections to socialism it bothers me that your comment presents capitalism as self-evident. Even if you believe that it's the best (or at least least worst) system, you should always question it.

If a company generates billions in profit the question of how this profit is divided among the owners and the workers should forever remain an open question I think.

Proponents of the shareholder value model would argue that the point of a business is to maximize that value, and that it's better to return that value to shareholders instead of giving it to employees.

In the case of the button pressing employee, if they can find someone that would press the same button for minimum wage instead of billions per year, with functionally equivalent output, then from that perspective it would make sense to replace that expensive employee with a cheaper one, as that would maximize shareholder value.

In practice, things aren't as simple, since value maximization can have all kinds of perverse effects (eg. in that model, dumping sewage into a lake is a great idea if the fine is smaller than the resulting shareholder value) and shareholder value is kind of detached nowadays with profitless companies and many companies not electing to pay dividends.

In a company like Google the argument that the workforce is effectively just a commodity that could be replaced easily and at will is obviously not applicable. Most of Google engineers are not button pushers.

This example is nonsensical as a bunch of behind the scenes contractors and management presumably set up the system. Except that as soon as the contractors leaves, you’ve lost your primary factor of production: the knowledge of how the whole thing works. the days where management doubles as knowledge workers are long gone.

As for profit sharing, that is a longer conversation, but most of the largest companies today do profit sharing in the form of stock grants, pension and share purchase programs.

One of the most depressing things about the US is the corporate authoritarianism that many employees seem to suffer from.

Of course shareholders should have priority over workers because... that's just the "natural" order of things?

If a company fails, shareholders risk some small percentage of capital they can mostly afford to lose, while workers risk poverty and homelessness?

It makes no sense at all to me. Not just from the point of view of comp, but from the point of view of democracy. Because you can't have a functioning democracy when you have huge power differentials between different castes.

Unions - including board representation for unions - are one way to shrink those power differentials. They're not the only way and they're not infallible, but when they do work they're guaranteed to better than nothing.

They not only redistribute income, but they also give individuals collective pushback against corporate bullying and abuse.

Or perhaps you'd rather continue to grumble that HR is always there to take the company's side, but do nothing about it?

The concern from people like myself is that another word for a union is a cartel. When companies form cartels and engage in anti-competitive behavior, we penalize them severely (in theory at least...but that's another issue). Yet when labor colludes, we simply call it a union.

Tech is especially interesting because the usual claims of "workers have less power individually" (which is always true in all industries) is really really not a great argument in tech. The labor market in tech is so unbelievably competitive, and the average worker has leverage that is only seen in the upper echelons of other industries.

This is a popular myth but if you do any research you’ll learn it’s not true. There’s no such requirement because there’s no way to reliably predict the future impact of decisions: for example, does paying “too much” for employees lower turnover and avoid them starting competitors? Skimping on maintenance, outsourcing jobs, or taking on debt will definitely “maximize” shareholder value for a little while, until the bill comes due.

Think for a minute about how you’d argue any of those points in court and you’ll understand why the real laws have significant deference to executives’ judgement. Neither side would have any trouble finding people to say their decision was best, and even after the fact there are inevitably many factors which people can point to when explaining whatever happened.

Seems far better to unionise and try to institutionalise and lock-in better pay and working conditions then to count on always having a hypercompetitive labor market and obscenely profitable employers.

That isn’t a cartel and there can be multiple, competing unions working for the same type of workers in the same industry.

That's the definition of cartel. Unions exist to maximize the amount they extract from buyers of labor. This is rent seeking plain and simple.

What's more, they don't compete with each other, which is what corporations must do. Why does the UAW get to enjoy a monopoly on the sale of autoworker labor? Should Ford and GM and Chrysler be able to unionize together to keep wage costs lower?

Why not? If you go talk to your manager and tell him "I have another offer at XXX, I want you to match it or I'm leaving" what is going to happen?

In the past, I've been quite open when I thought that I needed more money to my manager, and have even given specific ways of making me "not distracted by money concerns". Sometimes they can meet those goals, sometimes they can't.

Personally, the offer as you've given it is probably more adversarial than I'd prefer. Something like "I feel like I'm worth more to the company than X, I feel like I'm worth Y, and here is a list of reasons, here is my career goals, etc etc". Then if they don't match it, you can accept that other offer. But YMMV.