Remix.run Logo
typ an hour ago

Saw a theory somewhere that, instead of raising the minimum wage, a policy that enables and incentivizes job hopping is what actually works for increasing the median wage level. The inverse implication of the theory is also interesting: any policy that makes job hopping harder than staying would suppress the wage level.

manlymuppet 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is the standard in the Scandinavian social democracies. They have no minimum wage laws (though unions supplement that greatly) and a competitive labor market pushes wages up.

Much like housing, the best solution usually isn't government price controls. Better (if feasible) is abundance in the market.

999900000999 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

They also have a much better safety net. Healthcare not being tied to employment is already massive.

I think a flat tax + UBI is the only way to go. The dream of AI should be a society where maybe 10% of people have to work. The nightmare is if the other 90% still need work but can’t find it.

t-writescode 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Healthcare being tired to employment and related lacks of safety net are the only reason the most abusive companies (call centers, common retail experiences) have employees.

We would do well to improve safety nets so that everyone benefits.

manlymuppet 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes to a stronger welfare state, including untying healthcare and employment, and a UBI (more specifically a negative income tax).

But I think the nightmare you imagine is not realistic. There isn't a lump of labor. We shouldn't make policy decisions based on the assumption that the labor pool will be limited.

Retric 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Flat tax is only ever flat when you hold down deductions. That’s way harder than it seems.

The corporate veil is extraordinarily valuable to the point where a minimum 10% tax on any money passing through options makes a lot of sense. However, the idea you can pass liability off for free is so pervasive you’d never get something like that to pass.

andsoitis 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> the other 90% still need work but can’t find it.

Where do all jobs come from? Ultimately they’re created by people, so I wouldn’t worry about there being a demand but no supply.

manlymuppet 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Jobs are created by desire, and the labor required to fulfill the market's desires. People won't ever stop wanting things.

Our wants today are vastly different from our wants a hundred years ago, and thus the labor pool looks vastly different. We shouldn't make policy decisions based on the assumption that there is a limited lump of labor.

gradus_ad 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When everyone is the same (genetics, background, culture, etc) there is very little structural inequality in a competitive market. In an empire like the US, so many groups exist in a hierarchy that government support is required. In such an environment bare competition simply reveals and highlights fundamental difference, which is not conducive to social cohesion or harmony.

36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
rpdillon 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> enables and incentivizes job hopping

I've often felt that I'm not very good at a particular company until I've been there 4 years... then I can really do good work. I wonder if there is any downside for society to incentivize switching often.

manlymuppet 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

What kind of things made you feel not good in the first four years? Just unfamiliarity, something else?

Maybe we can fix the things that make workers uneasy in the first few years.

tangjurine 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was thinking the time it takes to find a job is good indicator of how hard it is to switch jobs, if that was tracked and reduced that would be good for workers.

bushbaba 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The more turnover the more leadership wants to keep talent. The more turnover the more hiring leadership needs to keep headcount.

Greater turnover is good for all employees and worse for employers

b1gTekken 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

Not just in employment; voting out incumbents improves economic growth for the majority: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766

Since the early 1980s, start of the Millennial generation, inflation is 300%; takes $800k/yr to have the buying power of $200k/yr in the 80s

Millennials and GenZ have only ever known austerity and oligarchy.

And that Exxon computed the min-max of the climate trend back in the 1970s just says they know, given all the data, they know.

GenX edge lords don't give shiiiit

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/style/gen-x-generation-di...

I have zero respect for people >50 especially any in official policy roles. Zero fucks for anyone but themselves this whole time; ignored reality just like religious nutters and presumed political dogma would be on their side

Jokes on them; Millennials are even more convinced it all just goes black with death, fewer young people going into elder care jobs, population decline crushing those jobs... GenX can enjoy hobbling to their toilet unassisted with bed sores and gout. Fuck them too then

testing22321 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> any policy that makes job hopping harder than staying would suppress the wage level

Like healthcare being tied to employment?

xp84 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly like this.

Since a public option will never happen, maybe the most feasible fix we could do is to do a REAL version of the P in HIIPA - portability. Let employees stay in the group plan of any company, paying the full premium a la COBRA, but forever, and require companies to give a tax-deductible cash benefit equivalent to the premium subsidy they'd be entitled to in their new job, if they show proof they're in a COBRA plan (which for efficiency, should just be a flag in some government database since they're all up in our business now with the 1095 forms anyway, they ought to know).

Avicebron 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Or hiring practices that can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent?

applfanboysbgon 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And yet that has terrible implications. Job hopping is both extremely unsatisfying on an individual level (no place to belong; you're just an interchangeable cog in the machine being swapped around, giving you no sense of purpose in your work) and on the greater national economic level (it's insanely inefficient and completely irrational to churn employees because you're willing to pay new hires more than your veteran staff).

manlymuppet 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

A competitive labor market doesn't automatically mean you switch jobs constantly though. You get choose which job you go to, and if you have better options available, and choose your optimal fit, that can give you more purpose, not less.

And while it is inefficient if a company has to constantly retrain employees, overall you can have a more efficient market when people are given options, since employees can find the best fit. If you're working a job that isn't the best possible fit (something that's harder to find when your limited by time and resources) that's worse overall for the economy.

Of course there's more nuance here, but this is the core debate of unemployment payments. More unemployment benefits incentivizes people to stay unemployed longer (bad), but when they do find eventually find employment, it's usually better employment (very good).

applfanboysbgon 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

> A competitive labor market doesn't automatically mean you switch jobs constantly though.

Maybe "a competitive labor market" doesn't, but "job hopping" does. That is, in fact, the definitional meaning of job hopping. They specifically made the claim about "job hopping" as pertains to a mechanism for achieving wages. This is incompatible with finding an optimal fit -- even if you found your optimal fit, you would essentially be taking a massive wage cut to stay at your optimal fit job for more than a couple of years, if job hopping is the chosen mechanism for society-wide wage growth. I was responding to the claim that was made about job hopping, not some other claim about competitive labor markets.

manlymuppet 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're right, and I should've addressed you more directly.

Job hopping is the result of competition in the labor market, and while some may find it unfulfilling, that is usually the exception, and macroeconomically speaking, more job hopping can be really good for the overall market. That's all I was saying, though I forgot to mention how competition in the labor market relates.

My definition of job hopping is to switch jobs continually until you find the right fit, the right fit including wages as a factor among many others. I suspect that your definition means jumping jobs arbitrarily for the highest wage. In that case you are right that job hopping is bad, and it's my fault for confusing job hopping as wage increasing mechanism vs job hopping in general.

ch4s3 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Competitive labor markets are FAR more efficient in terms of labor productivity, allocation, skill development, and spreading ideas around. One of the reasons the Industrial Revolution happened in England was because labor was more mobile than on the continent.

skybrian 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Job-hopping doesn't seem to have those downsides in Silicon Valley though? I think the "feeling like a cog" aspect has more to do with company size. Can you get a meeting with the CEO?

applfanboysbgon 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't know why you think SV doesn't have those downsides. In fact the entire world suffers the price of SV driving away their own employees with institutional knowledge and massively diminishing the quality of their software as a result.

skybrian 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

I worked at a series of startups and I think having lunch every day with the other employees was an excellent way to get to know them. These jobs didn't last long because the startups weren't all that successful, but I remember them well.

Or maybe it was because I was younger then?

Stayed at Google over a decade and it wasn't quite the same, particular when working with people in distant offices.

shimman 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah no thanks, I rather have the government regulate some actual floors rather than hoping that the better angels of American corporations eventually do the right thing.

Also who wrote this theory? Sounds like the wet dream of some neoliberal econ grad.

manlymuppet 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're not simply hoping that corporations do the right thing though. Rather, you're making it more economically unfeasible for them to pay workers less.

That's good because you don't have to rely on corporations acting morally, and corporations who do act good out of moral obligation aren't punished fiscally for it.

And although the idea is sexy, it's far from a wet dream. It's actually the standard in the Scandinvan social democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity