[UncleMeat]

> but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. There are regular complaints about benefits and pay multipliers being cut back. Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible? People don't seem to complain when businesses do that.

[jandrewrogers]

Employee compensation is tied to profit in the form of RSUs. A decline in profit would substantially decrease the value of those RSUs and thus compensation. You can't just decrease profit in a vacuum and hand that revenue to employees, you have to consider the second-order effects.

[sudosysgen]

It's more complicated than that, but it would in the end be close to 300k salary increase. The correct way to think about it is, what if the company was entirely owned by employees? How would income change, then?

[rauhl]

> Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019.

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?

[tempest_]

That is profit, ie after the employee has been paid.

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

[jethro_tell]

Well 299,999 :)

[jfim]

That's profit per employee, not revenue per employee. Revenue per employee is much larger, at least according to this website [0]:

> 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

[danaris]

Since that's profit, I would assume (based purely on the phrasing) that it's net of obligations like salaries.

[alisonkisk]

Profit is after expenses, so employee can be $300k/yr more expensive before they are expensive to employ.

[jboy55]

Its pretty much the same number. An L4 at Google makes $250k and an L5 makes 340k on average according to levels.fyi. My experience with countering Google offers would indicate these are a bit low.

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.

[minimuffins]

> Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?

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.

[antisoeu]

Just call it what it is, greed. Why is it greedy if company owners want to make money, but "good and social" if workers want to make money?

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

[arcticbull]

It's not. Both sides want money. Currently, a small minority of authoritarians (management is authoritarian by nature - and that's okay) get to decide how much of the company profit is shared with employees. Now, employees get to decide alongside them. This reduces the power differential between the groups. Now they can decide what fair is on a more level playing field.

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?

[parasubvert]

Fewer people seem to be demanding democracy in government. ;)

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)

[throwaway3699]

Not really - it's basically two sets of authoritarians deciding.

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.

[antisoeu]

As for democracy - because companies are somebody's property. Do you demand democracy in your home? That is, can I decide on a new wall color in your kitchen? I vote for you to paint your kitchen pink, how about that?

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

[arcticbull]

> 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?

[antisoeu]

If your boss suffers no consequences if you leave, then your job is superfluous and you should leave, or your boss should be allowed to fire you.

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.

[arcticbull]

I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to fire me, I didn't mean to imply that they would suffer no consequences however the consequences of 100% of my income is way smaller than whatever tiny fraction I make up of a 50,000 person company.

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.

[silverlake]

Governments take a % of my income. Democracy gives me a voice in how that pool of stolen money is spent. Businesses are private property owned by the shareholders. They can run their biz anyway they see fit, within community standards. I.e. no slavery or child labor, reduced pollution, contracts are binding, etc.

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.

[kortilla]

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

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.

[Apocryphon]

But employment is still an asymmetrical relationship where employees are submitting themselves to the authority of employers. And if you're putting yourself in a situation where you're under another's authority, wouldn't you want to maximize your own autonomy underneath it, via democracy? Even in "freely associated business relationship" you seek the power to negotiate and maintain your own preferences. In-n-Out has a customizable menu. Contractors negotiate their contracts for flexible terms.

> 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?

[kortilla]

> In-n-Out has a customizable menu. Contractors negotiate their contracts for flexible terms.

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.

[antisoeu]

"authoritarians" - is that what they call entrepreneurs these days?

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.

[arcticbull]

> "authoritarians" - is that what they call entrepreneurs these days?

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.

[danans]

> Personally I think the category "employee" should be forbidden. It is a pure social construct.

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.

[antisoeu]

It's still a social construct - all the laws, even nations, are social constructs. I'm saying there should be no special benefits for employees.

[danans]

> It's still a social construct - all the laws, even nations, are social constructs.

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?

[arcticbull]

And I'm saying there should be no special benefits to management :)

[minimuffins]

> 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.

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?

[antisoeu]

Capital and labor is a fake distinction. Your body/capability to work is capital.

[minimuffins]

Your body/capability to work is labor.

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

[Simulacra]

I think you misunderstand the power of a union at Google. If management says no, what are they going to do? Strike? I mean ..hundreds of them, will have zero effect. This Union is nothing more than a paper dragon. Democracy works in government but in a company that you don’t own, why do you think you deserve to make any of the decisions? As Obama said “you didn’t build that” and yet you want to feed at the trough.

[arcticbull]

It's not about deserve, it's about exercising the power your actually have. Management doesn't do any of the typing. I stop typing they're gonna have to replace me. I guess my retort would be why shouldn't I exercise the power I have? It's not about fair, it's about boots on the ground.

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.

[minimuffins]

> why shouldn't I exercise the power I have?

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.

[vladTheInhaler]

Why do you think you deserve to make any decisions? What makes you special? Absolutely nothing. But in a million tiny ways, you still try to have your say in the world, as much as you can. Even this comment is an attempt to spread your ideas to others, and make the world reflect your thinking just a little bit more. And that's perfectly natural. But don't be surprised when others do the same.

[salawat]

I disagree, particularly as someone who worked fror a firm making over 1000000 per employee.

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.

[antisoeu]

"That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat"

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

[xpe]

I find this to be comment to be unhelpful.

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.

[newsclues]

I don’t think profit per employee entitles an employee to more salary, but it can justify or prove that the company can afford to pay more.

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.

[antisoeu]

The "they will work harder" argument is bullshit. If that would apply, companies giving their employees more say and shares would be more successful, and drive away the others, all without the need to form unions.

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?

[Apocryphon]

> 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.

[antisoeu]

No matter what revenue they generate, I find it hard to argue that a janitor at Google deserves more than a janitor somewhere else. Presumably they are all doing the same kind of work. Doesn't mean Google shouldn't pay their janitors more, just that they shouldn't have to.

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

[ddingus]

Nobody mentioned entitlement. That money labor left on the table.

Together they can get more of it.

Simple as that.

[antisoeu]

If it is not entitlement, it is greed. I don't say greed is wrong or should be forbidden, just that they should be honest about it.

[ddingus]

Maybe.

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.

[Apocryphon]

What makes it greed, and not enlightened self-interest or rational economic behavior?

[Domenic_S]

The unspoken assumption behind this line of thinking is "if an entity/person can afford to pay more, the entity/person on the other side of the deal deserves more". This reasoning is applied to arguments about other things as well, such as taxes.

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?

[Apocryphon]

There's the asymmetry at play; with their immense wealth, these corporations can more easily pay employees more and have less effect on their bottom line- though perhaps simple math will prove this point wrong- than individual workers choosing to take pay cuts. But while this is a good discussion, I don't see how any of this differentiates being greedy from being a rational actor or homo economicus.

[missedthecue]

They're the same thing, but it shouldnt be wrong when John D Rockefeller does it and right when you do it if we're being consistent.

[Frost1x]

Is it really 'greed' when the capital ownership class want more money? That's not the narrative I hear pretty much everywhere, I simply hear it rebranded to: growing the economy, improving life, creating jobs, etc. It all depends on the argument and who wants what.

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.

[antisoeu]

"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."

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.

[minimuffins]

No, what "entitles" them is that they do the work and generate the profit and therefore have the power to organize themselves into a coherent, self-interested group that can withhold their labor if they don't get what they want.

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

[antisoeu]

As long as they get no special rights to form their unions, fine. In my country, unions get special protections by law, which is not OK.

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.

[minimuffins]

We're never going to have a productive discussion if you think capital and labor are the same thing.

[UncleMeat]

I wouldn't say that unionization of software engineers is a public good. It won't solve poverty or make the world a better place. It is a conflict between engineers and software executives to make money in the way that they want.

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.

[SerLava]

Could be neither, or it could be that adding to 20 billion dollars is different than adding to 100 thousand dollars.

[mordymoop]

I wonder if the company will respond to this sort of incentive by hiring hundreds of thousands of new employees to absorb the “profit” rather than pay employees far in excess of market rate.

[Frost1x]

Isn't there a massive 'labor shortage'? If that's already the case, that proposal seems even more impossible. You could hire non-tech workers and pivot to other industries where you can employ other people.

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

[thinkloop]

> Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?

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.

[flamble]

All of that capital was produced by labor, except what fraction of the value derives from raw natural resources pre-extraction.

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.

[chii]

> 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.

[GavinMcG]

That's the water we swim in, but can you actually make an argument for why things should be that way?

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

[chii]

> can you actually make an argument for why things should be that way?

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?

[GavinMcG]

You're saying the possibility of unlimited returns from others' labor is the only incentive people have to invest capital?

[ChrisLomont]

>All of that capital was produced by labor

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.

[adamsea]

Where does technology come from?

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

[ChrisLomont]

Yes, labor is a component. So is capital. And, recursively, so is technology. That is why economists don't claim all value is created solely by labor, and why econometrics measures the contribution of various components.

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.

[sudosysgen]

Technology can be reduced to labour, capital, and previous technology. Capital can be reduced to labour, capital, and land.

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!

[jfim]

I'd argue that most of their capital comes from their employees, not their hardware. Any company can buy hardware that's functionally equivalent to Google's. Even with a massive pile of cash and being able to buy the same amount of hardware that Google has, it would be useless without the software that makes it run, and that software is made by their employees.

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.

[tanilama]

But software can be written anywhere.

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

[Raidion]

In this somewhat reductionist approach, would it be fair that CEO overseeing that process be paid billions of dollars?

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?

[ddingus]

The only source of capital is labor.

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.

[chii]

> their product would be devalued quickly

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

[ddingus]

Automation may also improve consistency, or quality.

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.

[ddingus]

Maybe. A lot depends on personal cost / risk exposure relative to income.

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

[jellicle]

Why not? They're doing the labor. You're just assuming your conclusion here. Your premise is that "having capital" deserves a reward and "doing work" doesn't, and so your conclusion is that having capital should be rewarded and doing labor should not be. But if you change your premise, the results can change too.

[simias]

>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.

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.

[jfim]

> Why should it go into the shareholder's pockets instead of the people who actually do the work and create the value?

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.

[simias]

Well the original example was obviously flawed because if all that's left for the employee to do is literally just press a button, then it would've been automated as well.

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.

[parasubvert]

“Value creation” is not in the labor of pushing a button. It’s in the human capital, management that led to the creation of the system.

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.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Imagine something that doesn't exist and then claim it's "fair framing" to argue as if it does?

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?

[mempko]

Really sad you are being downvoted.

[qeternity]

They absolutely should. And companies/management have a fiduciary duty to give them as little as possible. This is the competition that gives rise to capitalist efficiencies.

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.

[acdha]

> And companies/management have a fiduciary duty to give them as little as possible.

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.

[matz1]

I think more accurate to say the fiduciary duty is to make money as much as possible. At least that I would want the my company to do.

[acdha]

Try to find a legal statement to that effect. You’ll find a lot of people claiming that but there’s nothing binding for the reasons I gave: nothing is certain in business and people will reasonably differ about the best ways to produce growth over any non-trivial time scale. Remember all of the people who very confidently said that Apple was wasting its time with phones and would never overtake Nokia?

[jimcsharp]

I would liken unions to corporations rather than cartels.

[missedthecue]

What about the definition of cartel doesn't match what a union does?

[ForHackernews]

Sure, but will these salad days continue forever? I feel like most of HN is too young to remember the dot-com crash.

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.

[alisonkisk]

Management is a cartel. I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.

[qeternity]

That's not the legal or economic definition of a cartel.

[mrzimmerman]

Nor is a union the economic or legal definition of a cartel. A union is closer to creating a company that acts as a negotiating and protective apparatus for its employees as they do contractual work for other companies.

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

[missedthecue]

an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level

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?

[Anderkent]

>I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.

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?

[Afton]

You absolutely can. Managers will push back with "rules" that only apply if management doesn't want to pay you more. Or they will go to HR to get an exception if they think you are worth that exception (that is, if they aren't worried about not being able to match an offer for an employee that they really care about). You can absolutely negotiate.

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.

[johnathandos]

If I were the manager, I’d respond to this by wishing the person luck and asking when their last day will be.

[lokar]

Not at Google you can't

[Simulacra]

Because they are workers. If they want to “capture” some of that profit, to start their own company, or work at a different company. Unions today are more about punishing the owners for making too much profit than it is about keeping anyone safe or fair. Just because you work at a company does not give you “ownership.”