HN has a mix of opinions but there are a lot of "temporarily embarrassed ~~millionaire~~ billionaire" wannabe entrepreneurs. People that think of themselves as employers not employees, etc.
Maybe you should actually read and understand the anti-union comments on this site rather than using a memetic caricature from reddit or whatever. Of the anti-union comment I've seen, none were justified on the basis that the commenter was a '"temporarily embarrassed ~~millionaire~~ billionaire" wannabe entrepreneurs'. The closest I've seen are people who think they're above average performers, and think that contracts that typically result from union negotiated contracts (eg. seniority based or credential based) would negatively impact their compensation. Regardless of whether you think arguments like these hold any water, it's a massive disservice to portray them as them being anti-union because they "think of themselves as employers not employees".
That is indeed close: Why do we always hear from people who think they are well above average contributors, and not the ones that don't?
I've read the other comments too. The most interesting ones were the people who previously had "conventional, blue collar" union jobs and didn't like their union. There are certainly real problems, but thankfully there are a number of "reform caucuses" right now winning elections that can start to fix them.
I don't think that's it. It's just that some people see the world of business, particularly in the West, as the main mechanism for pay rises.
If there's a relatively open market, non-onerous regulation, and some money to be made, then businesses will spring up and the best engine of salary-raising, other employers, will work without intervention.
It's not a perfect solution, but it also requires paying close to zero taxes to work. Every regulation is more cost paid in tax by employers to central and regional government, and also within every business as they have to employ more people to ensure they stay compliant. This is all money that could go to salaries / lower prices / higher quality elsewhere / dividend payments. It's not free.
And so you don't need to be a Fountainhead-quoting 17 year old to question this stuff. It's a fundamental lever on how economies and productivity work.
I am not sure what you are arguing. What is the mechanism you are proposing?
It sounds like "overhead depresses wages", but outside of a few special cases like Academia, I don't really see much evidence of that. Until recently we had chronically loose labor markets. There is simply no reason to presume employers are handing out all they can in that case. And the ones that are and not paying above-market wages are, by definition, low-productivity businesses that do not deserve to exist.
That's the great thing about high employment: as the "floor" of acceptable comp/working conditions goes up, we find all sorts of shitty (typically small) businesses that cannot make it. Those shitty businesses do fine in the Obama years when everyone is desperate for work, but they can't cut it now. They go under when they can't hire, and average productivity rises accordingly.
> There is simply no reason to presume employers are handing out all they can in that case
I didn't say that there was.
> That's the great thing about high employment
Not if it's coming from the public sector. Then it's government taking taxes from businesses and using it to pay people more than said business can. Saying that means the businesses shouldn't exist feels like a statement of faith.
> we find all sorts of shitty (typically small) businesses that cannot make it
We also find good small businesses that can't, and bad public sector ones. We just call the public sector ones "underfunded" when that happens.
"Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is one of the most ridiculous bits of motivated reasoning to ever come out of the left. There's little to no evidence for it but gives the one who states it the ability to hold anyone who disagrees with them both in contempt and inferiority at the same time. It is quite clever, if your goal is to protect many of the inherent contradictions on the neoliberal worldview but is terrible if your goal is to ever understand those who frustratingly refuse to hold views you paternally believe are what's best for them.