[throw123123123]

Wages are not downstream of profits - they are a price in a market for labor. If companies could pay 0 they would pay 0, and if employees could charge infinite they would charge infinite.

It's better this way - otherwise employees at companies that make no money would have to take no salary.

[freediverx]

It’s only better this way from the corporation’s POV. Without labor unions, any salary negotiations are heavily weighted in favor of the corporation.

[somenameforme]

Many small businesses seek to treat their employees well. It's not out of some ulterior 5D chess profit seeking scheme, nor is it out of naivete of the fact that they could earn more. But simply out of having some degree of social values and ethics. Wanting to make a profit or to become rich, isn't the same as being willing to screw everybody (or anybody) over in pursuit of such.

In America today only 57% [1] of people have a positive view of capitalism. And that percent is only that "high" thanks to much older individuals who are probably envisioning our capitalism as it was in the past, before MBAology became the default corporate worldview. Take only 18-29 year olds, and 40% have a positive view. What do you think's going to happen as the older generation dies off?

Capitalism is not sustainable without more of society pushing back against sociopathy. Normalizing it because 'this is how big companies act' isn't going to normalize it, but simply turn people against capitalism - and ultimately bring us closer to swapping over to ["this time it'll be different"]ism iteration #73 or whatever.

[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-decli...

[throw123123123]

It's not related to capitalism or labor organization. It's that the relationship between profits and wages is misunderstood. If you want your income to be completely tied to the business results, you want to be a business owner.

There is no sociopathy, it is a simple enterprise where someone absorbs the risk and others don't - it is collaboration.

[pnt12]

That's the status quo - a distinction between owner and employee. And it's good for the owners, who get to maximize profits - but is it good for employees? I'd say there's less risk, but they get impacted when business is down, and may not reap the profits when business is good.

Some companies are experimenting with other models - there's no law or force of nature saying an employee can't be a partial owner of a business.

[throw123123123]

You can start your own company, service or product and own 100%. In tech there's pretty much no excuse, anyone can make money online.

[NeverFade]

> Wages are not downstream of profits - they are a price in a market for labor.

That is correct, and a point many in this discussion miss.

> It's better this way - otherwise employees at companies that make no money would have to take no salary.

Not so fast. For one, companies that "make no money" eventually go bankrupt and pay nothing to nobody.

It's not "better" or "worse", paying what the market requires is simply the way things are in a free market.