I hate that I have to opt out of this stuff that I never signed up for and never would have. I filed the request to freeze, and see that it will require me uploading many more pieces of data to prove identity and address. Disgusting.
I'm not seeing how this matters, they were already doing that - the market is a big auction to work out the overlap between lowest salary employees will work for and the highest salary employers will offer. In that process employees also use data to figure out the highest salary that will be offered. The thing forcing employers to pay the salary they do is that if they offer less someone else will gazump them for the employee's time. It has nothing to do with the circumstances of the employees lifestyle. The lifestyle adjusts to the salary.
I wonder if the winning game becomes your own boss and tiny companies.
I want to do the jump, but lack of courage, good ideas, sales skills and a very good salary still holding me back (open for suggestions).
But if the very good salary would go away, the scales tip instantly.
I say this because any time you bring up the idea of collective action, collective bargaining or, well, collective anything, you'll get a bunch of comments from Ameribrains who say "I don't want my salary dragged down by other people" or "I can negotiate my own salary" even though there is a *massive power imbalance.
If the company doesn't employ you or has to pay even 10% more it doesn't really matter either way for 99% of people. You are replaceable. Even if you think you aren't, you are.
But if you don't have a job in the US, that's your house, school for your children, food, health insurance and your car. All of those things depend on you having that job.
For you this is literally life or death. For the company not only is it not, but they have every resource in the book. They can pit you against other candidates. They can suppress your wages with layoffs or even just the threat of layoffs. They're going to do things like this to algorithmically lower your salary.
And you think you can compete with that? You can't. You may think you can but you can't. They're using the hybris of the human psyche against you. Everybody thinks they're above average. Everybody thinks they can text and drive. At least 95% of people can't.
In a weird way this is kind of the same thing as dynamic pricing. Dyanamic pricing is using algorithms to see how much you'll pay. Well I guess this is the other side of the coin: let's see how little you'll take. The goal of all these systems, and probably the true "value" of AI, is to suppress your real wages.
People tend to think that income taxes lower your salary. While in practice employers know exactly for how little money (in hand) you are willing to work and in absence of income taxes would just pay this much less so that your money in hand is the same.
As an employee you should fight for income taxes to be as high as possible since they are neutral for you and might fund useful things for all. When left in the pocket of your employer they just become their takeaway. Employers won't spend it on improving the company if they don't have to. And the only things that force them to spend money in a predictable manner is regulation and markey opportunity to earn more. When they have those needs they mostly do it with credit anyways.
Conversely as an employer you should advocate for lowest income taxes possible for your workers.
You're suggesting that 100% of the income tax burden is shifted from employees to employers.
The incidence of taxation (which party bears the burden of the tax, irrespective of who 'pays' it) is widely studied. As it relates to payroll taxes (paid by the employer) and income taxes (paid by the employee) most research finds that employees bear most (but not all) of the burden. This is the opposite of your claim.
One (more) thing to opt out of:
Freeze Your Data - The Work Number https://employees.theworknumber.com/employee-data-freeze
As I understand it, payroll whores your salary out to Equifax*, who then pimps it to others
* Yeah, that one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Equifax_data_breach
No they sell it directly: https://theworknumber.com/solutions/industries/pre-employmen...
The Work Number is in fact Equifax.
I hate that I have to opt out of this stuff that I never signed up for and never would have. I filed the request to freeze, and see that it will require me uploading many more pieces of data to prove identity and address. Disgusting.
I'm not seeing how this matters, they were already doing that - the market is a big auction to work out the overlap between lowest salary employees will work for and the highest salary employers will offer. In that process employees also use data to figure out the highest salary that will be offered. The thing forcing employers to pay the salary they do is that if they offer less someone else will gazump them for the employee's time. It has nothing to do with the circumstances of the employees lifestyle. The lifestyle adjusts to the salary.
I wonder if the winning game becomes your own boss and tiny companies.
I want to do the jump, but lack of courage, good ideas, sales skills and a very good salary still holding me back (open for suggestions). But if the very good salary would go away, the scales tip instantly.
Wait til you find out what customers do to figure out the lowest. There’s a little more accountability.
And our AIs can give us insight into what is the highest salary that the given company can offer.
Hyperindividualism is a mental health disorder.
I say this because any time you bring up the idea of collective action, collective bargaining or, well, collective anything, you'll get a bunch of comments from Ameribrains who say "I don't want my salary dragged down by other people" or "I can negotiate my own salary" even though there is a *massive power imbalance.
If the company doesn't employ you or has to pay even 10% more it doesn't really matter either way for 99% of people. You are replaceable. Even if you think you aren't, you are.
But if you don't have a job in the US, that's your house, school for your children, food, health insurance and your car. All of those things depend on you having that job.
For you this is literally life or death. For the company not only is it not, but they have every resource in the book. They can pit you against other candidates. They can suppress your wages with layoffs or even just the threat of layoffs. They're going to do things like this to algorithmically lower your salary.
And you think you can compete with that? You can't. You may think you can but you can't. They're using the hybris of the human psyche against you. Everybody thinks they're above average. Everybody thinks they can text and drive. At least 95% of people can't.
In a weird way this is kind of the same thing as dynamic pricing. Dyanamic pricing is using algorithms to see how much you'll pay. Well I guess this is the other side of the coin: let's see how little you'll take. The goal of all these systems, and probably the true "value" of AI, is to suppress your real wages.
>Ameribrains.
If you want someone to read everything you have to write, abstain from triteness like namecalling.
It saved me the trouble of reading the rest of their comment, so there’s that.
People tend to think that income taxes lower your salary. While in practice employers know exactly for how little money (in hand) you are willing to work and in absence of income taxes would just pay this much less so that your money in hand is the same.
As an employee you should fight for income taxes to be as high as possible since they are neutral for you and might fund useful things for all. When left in the pocket of your employer they just become their takeaway. Employers won't spend it on improving the company if they don't have to. And the only things that force them to spend money in a predictable manner is regulation and markey opportunity to earn more. When they have those needs they mostly do it with credit anyways.
Conversely as an employer you should advocate for lowest income taxes possible for your workers.
You're suggesting that 100% of the income tax burden is shifted from employees to employers.
The incidence of taxation (which party bears the burden of the tax, irrespective of who 'pays' it) is widely studied. As it relates to payroll taxes (paid by the employer) and income taxes (paid by the employee) most research finds that employees bear most (but not all) of the burden. This is the opposite of your claim.
When I apply for a job, I use data to figure out the highest salary the company will accept.
The internet has information on what salaries a company pays. One would be foolish to not look it up before negotiating compensation.