[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
But I think PG isn't bad. I think he mostly want to do good things and thing well of him, just as all the other venture capitalists that back his incubated companies. But they rarely get how hard life is for most of the people.
They were born in the land with the most opportunities, and/or studied to be in the field with the most growth in the last decades by far(technology)... and they don't get it.
I actually miss the time he was just a computer programmer, he wrote cool stuff.
Now, it seems everything to be about making a dent(5-7%) in the universe. Everything is about money. Money. Money.
I seriously see no value in making taxists make less money than they already do, or completely "disrupting" markets where the workers, the poor, end up having shittier lifes because all of that venture capital injected to a competitor just across the street.
But well, history will tell if this was right or not. I'm just a man who can barely come up with a concise though as you.
What if we paid workers meaningful amounts of equity? Would that perhaps reduce the need for unions bc the labor/capital divide starts to get blurred and then workers are able to share in the wealth they generate for companies?
But for people who work for private companies, equity gets to be more tricky, for instance due to varying levels of seniority, "golden" shares, and so forth. From what I've read on HN, my impression is that the senior shareholders screw the junior shareholders. Also, it may be impossible to figure out the value of such a company, i.e., for anybody to know what they're really getting paid.
How would you provide equity for public school teachers?
With public sector unions, bankruptcy is very hard to achieve. The union also isn't negotiating with the government agency; it's negotiating with politicians as well, who have aims other than efficiency. They want to get elected. If enough of your constituency is in the relevant union, there's going to be pressure to not negotiate as hard.
Look at e.g. public transit unions. The DC Metro is falling apart, station managers sleep at work, escalators don't work ludicrously often, repairs are shoddy, and the drivers aren't terribly good at driving their trains (seriously, since they disabled computer control it's started giving me motion sickness; I have never experienced this on other transit systems). Yet the union is asking for a raise.
> How would you provide equity for public school teachers?
I don't subscribe to the neo-liberal idea of conflating money with value (or equivalently: to measure efficiency in terms of money). But one could theoretically ban salaried employment[1,2]. And structure public services as employee-owned corpration that bid on service contracts. On might create a limited monopoly, by requiring a license to eg: run public education. And the same could be done for police, prisons, fire departments, special forces, security services... Again, I don't think this is a good idea, and we do this to a certain extent already.
[1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/knights-of-labor-jim-crow...
It's sad that union has such a bad rep in the US. I'm not sure if that has more to do with right wing politicians colluding with organized crime to disrupt and discredit unions, or if there really are issues with unions in the US in general. My limited reading implies unions in the US are generally a net good for society. Then again, it's hard to discuss sane labour practices in a country where a number of states practice at-will employment.
It's so far distant from the work market in Norway that I have a difficult time trying to relate.
Providing a better outcome without the intermediaries would be a great way to improve the system.
At some point, the value of labour will have to be decoupled from remuneration almost entirely. As a society need to re-adjust our thinking on the meaning of welfare, quality of living and the value of work.
I do wonder, if wealth were more equally distributed, whether we'd already be in a post-scarcity economy, at least in the developed nations.
And perhaps the customers of the industry?
Edit: My point is that, assuming there are inefficiencies created by unions in a given market (as the parent does), then correcting those inefficiencies would be a positive externality for the market at large, i.e., it would benefit more than just the specific company or investors.
Barring a monopoly situation, this isn't a choice you get to make.
"We can almost always find someone who will do a job for less money". Where does this come from? Try hiring someone equally capable for half the salary you are paying now.
Why not let that person have the job?
That's probably the poorest person, who needs it the most.
For the same reason we have minimum wage laws. Pitting workers against each other in a race to the bottom leads to unsustainably, exploitatively low wages.
We all had that idea. Going non-union is nothing new. I've seen, and worked non-union all my life. Owning a non-union shop is nothing to be proud of, and your employees are always looking to get some gravy. That is--the one's who realize they are being exploited.
Again his statement is old news, and you can decimate some unions in some counties. Strong unions, like most San Francisco unions will be a tough nut to crack. Unions in San Francisco stick together. I have seen entire buildings empty out over a union painters strike.
Rebublicans have tried to stifle unions as long as I can remember. I don't know of a business that doesn't fear unions.
Why did a wealthy tech boy say something like it was a new idea? He was under the influence of God's nectar, or he isn't as clever, as I thought? Yea, he's a great programmer, and a seemingly great businessman. Or, is he just a great programmer, who was first to this second/third tech investment table?
No matter what he is, I'm back to thinking tech is really in a bubble. It's funny how little I needed to change my mind. While we are speaking our inner thoughts out loud, let's go for it:
Let's decimate all Union.
Get that county judge down to minimum wage.(Don't worry about graft?)
Get that cop down to minimum wage. (Yes, there would still be yahoo's that would do that job for free. Why? We all know why?)
Get rid of all Union construction jobs. (We are close to being there already.)
Why date, or marry locally? You could buy cheaper love in another country. A country that doesn't have Union expectations. Imagine a husband that will do whatever you tell him to do? He hasn't been ruined by a union? He doesn't expect much? Love is a union--right? Let's break it up.
Let's build everything in the cheapest country. (We already do that.)
Let's get rid of any profession that relies on tips. I honestly never liked being served, nor helped by that phoney tip seeking behavior. I'm just being honest. I can get my own food. I can open my own door. I don't want someone parking my car. This trend I like, but a higher minimum wage might stop the need for tipping?
Let's finally decimate the middle class! Yea, my app will do it, and we have enough people who don't mind sleeping four to a 10' X 10' room? They just want a little money to survive? And maybe buy one of our toys? Or, maybe none of our toys?
It's all cute when your standing on the full wine barrel, but God help us when we turn into Mexico. Where, if you have a few assets, and some pocket change, you can't even enjoy a dinner out. You can't take a stroll in the local park. Constantly fearing a kidnapping. Fearing for your children's safety. Fearing life?
By the way, I've know too many former Programmers who are now homeless. A few years ago I thought it was just a statical, local fluke. I don't believe it was a cluster. I honestly think Programmers could unionize in The Bay Area? There's a reason your boss wants to live here. It would be an incredibly hard Union to get into, but if done right; you guys would be set for life? I've been in good unions. Not all Union members are paid the same (some members work one day, and are let go). There's no law, that I know of, that would prevent profit sharing for individual union members. Maybe it's time? Forget about the free food--Don't you want normal hours, and some pension guarantees? Again, this fictional Union would have to be set up by the best Programners out there, and some charismatic organizers. It would be an exclusive Union. A union that was different than any Union I'm aware of. The time has come? Or, do we need to let them waste more money on some ridiculous start-ups--essentially Rich boy gambling? Make them pay for the better Programmers? Yea, they might go off shore, but they will never get originality American's bring to the table?
Where the workers are also helped, that seems almost incidental in practice.
Edit: to the downvoters: consider what life was like for workers before unions were widespread.
I think the net result is a greater share of the profits for labor, but there are definitely some people in unions getting totally screwed by the unions.
OH&S wasn't all that important since we're talking about a desk job.
Generally speaking, the inefficiencies of unions exist to protect the interests of the workers, who generate wealth for the company but more often than not do not have an equity stake in the business. Unions exist to maintain the balance between capital and labor, and to make sure that people like PG don't deprive the laborers of fair remuneration for their work.
While we can almost always find someone who will do a job for less money, as a society we have an interest in providing an equitable share to labor, as there are far more workers driving this global economy than there are venture capitalists (or even just plain old capitalists) contributing to the economy in the form of seed round funding and the like.