• MooseBoys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference is that when you say “I can’t pay my employees more” most employees begrudgingly accept the pay they get anyway. But when someone says “I can’t pay my rent”, the landlord evicts them.

    If not paying your employees more actually resulted in having no employees, they would be equivalent. The only practical way to make that happen is unionization.

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s bizarre seeing that disconnect in real life.

      At my last job, the wages were stagnant for years. The company held meetings to boast that they were making record profits, the highest increase yet. The following month, they refused to raise wages because it would be too expensive.

      Somehow, they were shocked when practically everyone who was skilled left. They couldn’t get new people in the door, either.

      They ended up having to raise everyone’s wages. (YAY union!)

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re so close to hitting the fundamental truth here.

      A landlord evicts someone who cannot pay rent because there are other people who can pay rent.

      Employees leave if an employer pays too low if there are other, better-paying options available.

      As there are typically, though not always, more available workers than available jobs at a given pay rate, the workers lack the employer demand necessary to set pricing wholesale.

      The reason wages have been rising lately is because employers have been unable to find workers at previous salaries. There are most definitely businesses that have folded because of this - the business model for those companies did not account for higher wages, and raising prices was not possible in the interim.

      That’s the actual interplay between these market forces, and yes, the reason that unionization is effective (and often necessary) in raising wages. It’s why collective bargaining is an essential control on labor markets

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correct. In one example the tenants are against the actual contract they need more than the landlord. In another it’s the other way around with business owners and employees.

      It’s about negotiating power. Life isn’t perfect. Everybody has their own idea of humanism, fairness etc (albeit often similar to many other people). From that point to synchronize you either walk away, negotiate or use violence. The latter should cause immediate removal of the initiator from the society, though that doesn’t happen IRL - IRL that initiator is sometimes rewarded by various cockroaches. Walking away or negotiating is what normal humans in general do with varying results.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They accept it because what else can they do? A lot of them aren’t in unions and even if all of them quit, how are they going to find new jobs?

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing is that it hurts the employer just as much as the workers if everyone quits, so if you unionize first, then threaten to stop working, then you’ve got someone who can negotiate with the employer so that you don’t have to quit and you get paid enough to not make you want to quit.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m looking. The problem is I have sort of a weird and eclectic resume, which doesn’t look great to employers.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both wages and prices are those most advantageous to the owning class as most oppressive to the working class.

      The purpose of the post is to challenge the austerity narrative, of the immiseration of the working class being natural or necessary, more than simply desired by the greed of the owning class.