Can you imagine if HR actually addressed the reasons for leaving? It’s often the money, sometimes the management but usually the money.
Take my wife’s example, she changed jobs twice in a year and each jump was a 10k raise (she isn’t very good at negotiating, too). My brother changed jobs like 10 times in 5 years (programmer, several were start ups that ended) and he ended up going from 80k to 180k. Most of the jumps had anything to do with work environment, and in tech most of these companies have crazy good work environments.
So do they counter offer? Do they do competitive raises? Actually yes, but our worth is usually so high that doing those just raises the competing offer. If we ever were paid our worth, we’d stay. That hasn’t been the case since the 50s-- or so I’m told, anyway.
It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role
Well, it was closer I guess? I mean, compared to the income disparity we are today.
Of course whenever there is anyone who makes money simply by owning a company, I’d agree they aren’t really worth anything except maybe the effort to found said company (which isn’t really the case with investors, share holders, corporations, etc). There is some value in taking the initiative and risk, just not like… hundreds times more than the employee.
Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.
Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative
Can you imagine if HR actually addressed the reasons for leaving? It’s often the money, sometimes the management but usually the money.
Take my wife’s example, she changed jobs twice in a year and each jump was a 10k raise (she isn’t very good at negotiating, too). My brother changed jobs like 10 times in 5 years (programmer, several were start ups that ended) and he ended up going from 80k to 180k. Most of the jumps had anything to do with work environment, and in tech most of these companies have crazy good work environments.
So do they counter offer? Do they do competitive raises? Actually yes, but our worth is usually so high that doing those just raises the competing offer. If we ever were paid our worth, we’d stay. That hasn’t been the case since the 50s-- or so I’m told, anyway.
It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role
Well, it was closer I guess? I mean, compared to the income disparity we are today.
Of course whenever there is anyone who makes money simply by owning a company, I’d agree they aren’t really worth anything except maybe the effort to found said company (which isn’t really the case with investors, share holders, corporations, etc). There is some value in taking the initiative and risk, just not like… hundreds times more than the employee.
Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.
Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative