Hacker News Reader

Comment by rwmj | Hacker News Reader

Pay is a power relationship. No one is asking company directors to take a pay cut based on cost of living calculations, because company directors have power over their companies. Similarly cleaners are paid peanuts even if they have to live/commute to high cost of living cities to do the job, because cleaners have no power in the relationship. This is also why workers who unionise can be paid more - the union has power over the employer.

View on HN

No it isn't about power. Labour is a market and is governed by the laws of supply and demand (typically).

A cleaner gets paid less because it is unskilled work and almost any able bodied person can be a cleaner. Same someone that stacks shelves in a super market.

The same happens in our industry. VB.NET developers aren't in demand, the contract rates are sometimes £200-300 a day less than a React JS / C# .NET Core developer in Manchester which is in demand. Higher demand pushes up the price of labour.

What are the rates for React/C#?

Most ads are £350-500 per day. VB.NET (if there are any jobs) won't be more than £350. However I am basing this on the contract market before COVID.

Saying it’s a power relationship is another way of saying the same thing that you are saying here. The amount of power that employer and employee have is based in large part on supply/demand. However, power includes a little bit more: an employer who has a better knowledge of the market may be able to extract lower pay from an employee who doesn’t know their market rate, and an employee who is exceptionally well suited for a given job has more power to negotiate a better rate.

Of course, this can also be reframed as a supply/demand scenario taking into account imperfect information for a given scenario, but that’s largely my point. They aren’t equivalent concepts, but they are closely related.

> Saying it’s a power relationship is another way of saying the same thing that you are saying here.

The way you frame the power imbalance is framed suggests that there is always something coercive and manipulative going on. A market rate suggests that a the hourly or daily rate for labour has settled naturally around a particular point through market forces in that particular area. Developers are more in demand in London so the day rate offered reflects that (typically £100-200 more).

You seem to be conflating two concepts into one.

> The amount of power that employer and employee have is based in large part on supply/demand.

What do you mean by power? I don't want to sound rude but the way you are talking about it is akin to how people talk about the force in star wars.

> However, power includes a little bit more: an employer who has a better knowledge of the market may be able to extract lower pay from an employee who doesn’t know their market rate, and an employee who is exceptionally well suited for a given job has more power to negotiate a better rate.

What you are arguing there is being informed about the market means that you won't get ripped off. Generally though there will be an approximate wage for a particular type of work based on how valuable the employee is and whether they can be replaced or not.

There are job boards these days online for almost anything you can work out what you are going to get paid for a particular type of role.

> Of course, this can also be reframed as a supply/demand scenario taking into account imperfect information for a given scenario, but that’s largely my point. They aren’t equivalent concepts, but they are closely related.

Again don't want to sound rude. This all read likes double speak to me. If you want to talk about a coercive power imbalance then talk about that. If you want to talk about market rates talk about market rates. Simply call things what they are.

I’m not talking about a power imbalance, I’m talking about pay being a function of power equilibrium, of which market forces are one significant (perhaps most significant) component in a market society.

I think I will leave this conversation. You seem to want to engage in double speak. I have no interest in continuing.

I am sorry that it appears this way; I truly am not meaning to engage in double speak and really am trying to have a good faith dialogue. I’m not sure how you can remove the act of negotiation for labor unless the labor involved is entirely commoditized. And I’m not sure how to express the elements that make up that negotiation except as opposing interests with more or less power (regardless of whether you wish to label this as “coercive” or “manipulative” which seems to come with its own moral baggage that I am not trying to address).

I guess it could appear that I am engaged in double speak if you believe I am the poster that you originally responded to, but I am not.

>Higher demand pushes up the price of labour.

True... and higher supply pushes down the price of labour.

Software developers like to think they are some uniquely skilled niche, currently benefiting from the laws of economics.

If remote work REALLY takes off, the supply increases by whatever the rest of the world can contribute. It isn't like manufacturing where remote work isn't possible.

You are Not paid by the value you provide you are paid via the value you keep.

If it was as simple as you are stating (A has power over B), salaries would be zero, except with unionised workers, were company profits would be zero.

> This is also why workers who unionise can be paid more - the union has power over the employer.

I'm not convinced a union wouldn't adjust pay based on location though. A lot of times they already adjust pay by tenure, and other factors that don't affect job performance directly.

Right now employees at tech companies do have power. If you get an offer that is adjusted based on cost of living, you can say no, and there are plenty of other places hiring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com