January 22, 2009 at 9:58 pm
mtucker (1/22/2009)
dphillips (1/22/2009)
Who can last longer (business or employee) is a figure of debate. My current employer is tied to a market; I am not.There is no doubt that in most cases employers are in a stronger position (have more negotiating power) than employees
Using "no doubt" with "most cases"... sounds like room for doubt, and is still a position of perspective. The power of the employer only extends to the limit of the single employer. The employee, on the other hand can choose to work in any market, for any company the employee feels suits the current need (or want).
A resourceful and flexible person will find work in any market.
Undoubtedly. But the question is whether or not they will be paid fairly. Full disclosure of salaries makes it easier for employees to decide if they are being paid reasonably, hiding salaries makes it easier for employers to avoid paying fairly.
I think one should know what one expects before considering employment. Disclosure on the part of the employer is not very useful to me, nor do I care if someone makes more than I do. The question I ask myself is, "Is it enough, and worth enough for me?"
Since you cannot enforce perfection, no amount of laws will ever be able to permanently shore up any market.
The fact that we cant achieve perfection does not mean we should abandon any attempt to get closer to it.
Agreed.
If a free market functions better with regulations then regulations should be put in place.
I picture the two ideas "free" and "regulated" as being diametrically opposed. Human weakness and greed cause regulation of a free market, which in no way, shape, or form equates to "functions better".
Ronald Reagan, ridiculed governmental regulation, by saying that governments tend to follow the policy, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." Sadly, we now see the third statement fullfilled.
Im not sure I understand your position - you argue for a free market, does this mean you are for or against full disclosure of salaries? In a truly free market the price of labour would be freely available to all players.
You are stating a tenant of pure capitalism, and not necessarily a free market. The two are not exactly equal. Capitalism is a specific implementation or form of free market and has some focus on fair and open knowlege. A free market is not necessarily a "fair" market, not to mention that "fair" is based on perspective. However, I can see where we need to ensure that different issues like gender and race are not discriminated in compensation. However, a company disclosure will not solve this across a market segment of neither business nor job description. One's personal knowledge and awareness of proper compensation for the given industry and job title is the key to allaying these issues. If one does not know, should one really blame a company for lack of disclosure? I honestly think not.
Blaming poor regulation is blatent opinion, and a hotly debated issue. Greed, and bad financial management on the part of many in both business and personal sectors are far easier to blame, and no amount of legislation will ever be fully enough to eliminate these problems.
Greed and poor management need to be reigned in by better regulation.It is unlikely you will ever persuade people to be less greedy, so you need to enforce some constraints to stop it getting out of hand.
This second sentence in this statement would seem (to me) to contradict the statement made just a couple of lines ago (see above) you said, "The fact that we cant achieve perfection does not mean we should abandon any attempt to get closer to it."
"Free" and "regulated" are opposites. More regulation has not ever, and will not make better business or people. In fact, it creates loopholes, and does cause elevated pricing and inflation.
However, people being better people does make better business; because ultimately, business is people. I am firmly convinced of the axiom, "Teach (people) correct principles, and they govern themselves." (See: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/lpad/2005/00000028/F0020005/art00005).
A free market system does tend to right itself, when not propped up by borrowed money.
Borrowed money is an integral part of a free market - money is a commodity too. It is true that free markets usually correct themselves, so long as they dont do too much damage in the process. But they also tend to swing violently up and down, it is better to have a self correcting system that doesnt have such radical swings up and down.
Agreed. But please note the extremity extended... propped up verses enabled by. When it is the money "lending" market that is trouble, the propping is a negative, for which all people pay, and nobody wins. Some may, however, argue that the over-extension of lending and greed will be rectified by the "propping-up" of these institutions. I pray they are right... for all our sakes... but history shows throwing a bigger deficit to pay or level a deficit is usually a bad idea. I know many several who lost big. Either way, we all have lost momentum.
In the end, to circle back to the topic, if one does not know what a position is worth before one even meets the employ, then one has already disadvantaged oneself. One should not gauge personal value based on potential employment standards, because if they do, they really do not value themselves outside the scope of another (person).
January 22, 2009 at 10:41 pm
mtucker (1/22/2009)
if you are in the job market looking for work then you are tied to the market consisting of the jobs that you can do
... or that one decides to learn, or that one is compelled to learn... or even become an employer and play the other side of the game. Only the individual limits the individual.
if you are in the job market as an employer looking for employees you are tied to the market consisting of the people who are putting themselves forward for that type of work
Tied to a market of people in general, yes, but the market is not created by the employees, it is created by and generally dictated by the needs of the business, which is dictated by the needs of the market they serve.
To put it another way. If you lose your job you lose 100% of your income, ...
WRONG. If one puts 100% of their "eggs" in the control of the employer, then one has done oneself a great dis-service.
... but if an employer loses you they probably only lose a tiny fraction of their income.
Depends on the position, and the employee... I have seen some damaging things done by some, and some damage companies have inflicted on themselves by throwing away (or losing) competent star help... damage to the tune of millions.
Employees have power in that they can look for work eslewhere, but there are usually large costs associated with this. Of course, in an ideal free market there would be no cost to switch from one job to another, or to find new employees, but this is not reality.
Change is never free, no, not even in a so-called ideal free market. Planning ahead for change can take a substantial bite out of the fear of change. Money comes, and money goes.
In my personal experience, change has lead to bigger and better compensation, with few exceptions, but always garners experience and has chiselled away most of the fear I have for change. To me, the relationship and connections I make with others is worth far more in the long term than any compensation delivered by the employer.
Viewing 2 posts - 121 through 121 (of 121 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply