6 ms·

I appreciate the thoughtful comment. And I wouldn't dispute that we believe that lifetime employment by a single company is unlikely to be offered or accepted

I appreciate the thoughtful comment. And I wouldn't dispute that we believe that lifetime employment by a single company is unlikely to be offered or accepted in today's world. But Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. We're not pro-corporation or pro-employee; our point is that work is a voluntary relationship where both parties should benefit.

chris_wot 11y ago
Do you address the power imbalance between employees and employers? Do you address that an employee in such a culture is viewed as a disposable resource and no loyalty towards them is necessary, no matter what they do? Or do you address that corporations are run by people, who each have lives and that those who are older, female or who gave young families they must support and who they want to spend time with don't feel they are in such "voluntary" work forces? What about corporate cultures where if you say no to ridiculous work hours (often unpaid) or unreasonable demands will be "graduated" from their role? Or have you addressed the disruption to someone's life when they are forced out of a job, or the feelings of worthlessness they often feel, or the injustice that is often done to them? Your views appear to promote toxic corporate cultures. Frankly, they are designed for people who are highly mobile and who have as much power as their employers. You don't appear to address any of these things.
- chrisyeh 11y ago
  1) We do specifically address the power imbalance between employers and employees. Because managers typically have more power in the relationship, it is critical that managers take the initiative to prove themselves trustworthy. Now that talent mobility has increased so much, employers who continue to treat employees as disposable are going to have a hard time attracting the best talent. This doesn't mean that all companies will behave in an enlightened way, and there are cases where employees who lack specialized and valuable skills will still be treated badly. 2) There are also corporate cultures that place such high demands that they have negative impacts on employees' health and happiness. The purpose of our book isn't to defend all corporate employers! Its purpose is to lay out a plan for how corporate employers who believe in our ideas can build stronger, more mutually beneficial relationships with employees. 3) Losing a job can be devastating, both to your financial life, and to your health and happiness. It doesn't help that the social safety net in the United States is stingy and inconsistent. But unless you prohibit employers from laying off employees, I really think this is more a matter of government policy. And preventing employers from firing people always has unintended consequences, such as discouraging any hiring, and encouraging black market, off-the-books work. Have you actually read our book, or even one of our many articles? I feel like you're judging me based on Dan Lyons' editorial, which as I've already pointed out, quotes exactly 6 words out of the entire book. Broadly speaking, capitalism works because it is a voluntary exchange mechanism. It doesn't work perfectly, which is why we should strive for things like educational reform (to give everyone a chance to get a good education). But no system does.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Thinking beyond the best or the top ten percent should change some of the perspective. Not all workers will be of "the best". Most will be middlings. It's the middlings who need to worry about power imbalances and who take jobs with lousy bosses and put up with lousy coworkers. True, top talent has less to worry about since any setback in employment is easily reversible. Many (most) don't have that luxury. These are the ones for whom the new economy is angst inducing and a bit intimidating and who look back with fondness and melancholy at the old less tumultuous economy before the new management style took over.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Exactly - thank you. You wrote this more succinctly and clearly than I did! That is precisely my concern. I guess I'll read the book now if it isn't too expensive (or even available in my region!), but I think many of these ideas about mutually beneficial employment only really works where power is relatively well balanced - in other words the employer can't get rid of you or treat you badly because you are irreplaceable it very hard to replace, and the employee has loyalty towards the company. The instant this changes, then one party will often be largely unfairly affected.
      - sjg007 11y ago
        The whole point of software engineering is to automate yourself out of a job.
      - chrisyeh 11y ago
        The hope is that as talent mobility increases, the power imbalance will ebb. But it is rare for the power to be perfectly balanced.
        wiz21 11y ago
        "But it is rare for the power to be perfectly balanced." That's the difference between the powerful and the powerless. The powerful thinks the imbalance is a fact that will never change; the powerless thinks that must change. The problem in corporate world nowadays is that the powerful people disguise this difference all the time. For example : "hey, you can negotiate your salary and if you disagree, you have total freedom to go somewhere else. How powerful you are !" I'll sure read your book, but I'm under the impression I'll see another, maybe very sophisticated disguise... (yes you can call me a "socialist" (in the European sense) :-) because all of this is super political in fact)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
loup-vaillant 11y ago
> Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. I didn't read it like that. It's pretty clear from your statement (even taken out of context) that you expect lower loyalty on both sides. On the other hand there are bosses that would like loyal employees, even though they're not loyal themselves. They may even get a simulacrum of loyalty, as the fear of unemployability increases with unemployment itself. (Unless we take rather drastic measures, unemployment will continue to rise. Next in line are drivers.) Beneficial mutual relationship under Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is great, but we must not forget that some people, organization, or even countries, may have no comparative advantage. What are we to do with them? We can let organizations and countries collapse, but surely we shouldn't just let people die? Finally, it's not clear that work is really voluntary when the alternative is not being able to eat: employers face this conundrum much less often than employees do. There's a fundamental asymmetry there that when strong enough turns "voluntary" into plain old blackmail. (As a white male programmer, I don't believe the asymmetry I face is that strong. The neighbour who works at Starbucks however…)
- chrisyeh 11y ago
  The issue of what individuals who lack currently marketable skills should do is a tough one. Note that I didn't say unskilled...skills that once were valuable can become less valuable quite rapidly in our fast-changing world. Since we can't predict the future, we shouldn't blame those individuals who were unlucky enough to have invested in now-worthless skills. As a society, we need to understand that investing in re-training so that someone can find a new job is far better and less expensive than either putting someone on the dole for the rest of their life, or letting people "die in the streets," which is as nonsensical as it is callous.
  - loup-vaillant 11y ago
    Note that re-training may not be enough, if structural unemployment is still significant. To describe this problem, I like the analogy of feeding dogs in a desert island: 1 desert island with nothing to eat, 100 dogs. Every day, a chopper comes in and drop 95 pieces of meat. 95 dogs can eat, the 5 slowest are left starving. A dog trainer sees that, and decides to train the slower dogs so they can eat. And they do. Now 5 other dogs are left starving. My current take on this is, employment is overrated. We should find other ways to live our lives.

chris_wot 11y ago

Do you address the power imbalance between employees and employers? Do you address that an employee in such a culture is viewed as a disposable resource and no loyalty towards them is necessary, no matter what they do? Or do you address that corporations are run by people, who each have lives and that those who are older, female or who gave young families they must support and who they want to spend time with don't feel they are in such "voluntary" work forces? What about corporate cultures where if you say no to ridiculous work hours (often unpaid) or unreasonable demands will be "graduated" from their role? Or have you addressed the disruption to someone's life when they are forced out of a job, or the feelings of worthlessness they often feel, or the injustice that is often done to them? Your views appear to promote toxic corporate cultures. Frankly, they are designed for people who are highly mobile and who have as much power as their employers. You don't appear to address any of these things.

chrisyeh 11y ago
1) We do specifically address the power imbalance between employers and employees. Because managers typically have more power in the relationship, it is critical that managers take the initiative to prove themselves trustworthy. Now that talent mobility has increased so much, employers who continue to treat employees as disposable are going to have a hard time attracting the best talent. This doesn't mean that all companies will behave in an enlightened way, and there are cases where employees who lack specialized and valuable skills will still be treated badly. 2) There are also corporate cultures that place such high demands that they have negative impacts on employees' health and happiness. The purpose of our book isn't to defend all corporate employers! Its purpose is to lay out a plan for how corporate employers who believe in our ideas can build stronger, more mutually beneficial relationships with employees. 3) Losing a job can be devastating, both to your financial life, and to your health and happiness. It doesn't help that the social safety net in the United States is stingy and inconsistent. But unless you prohibit employers from laying off employees, I really think this is more a matter of government policy. And preventing employers from firing people always has unintended consequences, such as discouraging any hiring, and encouraging black market, off-the-books work. Have you actually read our book, or even one of our many articles? I feel like you're judging me based on Dan Lyons' editorial, which as I've already pointed out, quotes exactly 6 words out of the entire book. Broadly speaking, capitalism works because it is a voluntary exchange mechanism. It doesn't work perfectly, which is why we should strive for things like educational reform (to give everyone a chance to get a good education). But no system does.
- mc32 11y ago
  Thinking beyond the best or the top ten percent should change some of the perspective. Not all workers will be of "the best". Most will be middlings. It's the middlings who need to worry about power imbalances and who take jobs with lousy bosses and put up with lousy coworkers. True, top talent has less to worry about since any setback in employment is easily reversible. Many (most) don't have that luxury. These are the ones for whom the new economy is angst inducing and a bit intimidating and who look back with fondness and melancholy at the old less tumultuous economy before the new management style took over.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Exactly - thank you. You wrote this more succinctly and clearly than I did! That is precisely my concern. I guess I'll read the book now if it isn't too expensive (or even available in my region!), but I think many of these ideas about mutually beneficial employment only really works where power is relatively well balanced - in other words the employer can't get rid of you or treat you badly because you are irreplaceable it very hard to replace, and the employee has loyalty towards the company. The instant this changes, then one party will often be largely unfairly affected.
    - sjg007 11y ago
      The whole point of software engineering is to automate yourself out of a job.
    - chrisyeh 11y ago
      The hope is that as talent mobility increases, the power imbalance will ebb. But it is rare for the power to be perfectly balanced.
      - wiz21 11y ago
        "But it is rare for the power to be perfectly balanced." That's the difference between the powerful and the powerless. The powerful thinks the imbalance is a fact that will never change; the powerless thinks that must change. The problem in corporate world nowadays is that the powerful people disguise this difference all the time. For example : "hey, you can negotiate your salary and if you disagree, you have total freedom to go somewhere else. How powerful you are !" I'll sure read your book, but I'm under the impression I'll see another, maybe very sophisticated disguise... (yes you can call me a "socialist" (in the European sense) :-) because all of this is super political in fact)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

loup-vaillant 11y ago

> Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. I didn't read it like that. It's pretty clear from your statement (even taken out of context) that you expect lower loyalty on both sides. On the other hand there are bosses that would like loyal employees, even though they're not loyal themselves. They may even get a simulacrum of loyalty, as the fear of unemployability increases with unemployment itself. (Unless we take rather drastic measures, unemployment will continue to rise. Next in line are drivers.) Beneficial mutual relationship under Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is great, but we must not forget that some people, organization, or even countries, may have no comparative advantage. What are we to do with them? We can let organizations and countries collapse, but surely we shouldn't just let people die? Finally, it's not clear that work is really voluntary when the alternative is not being able to eat: employers face this conundrum much less often than employees do. There's a fundamental asymmetry there that when strong enough turns "voluntary" into plain old blackmail. (As a white male programmer, I don't believe the asymmetry I face is that strong. The neighbour who works at Starbucks however…)

chrisyeh 11y ago
The issue of what individuals who lack currently marketable skills should do is a tough one. Note that I didn't say unskilled...skills that once were valuable can become less valuable quite rapidly in our fast-changing world. Since we can't predict the future, we shouldn't blame those individuals who were unlucky enough to have invested in now-worthless skills. As a society, we need to understand that investing in re-training so that someone can find a new job is far better and less expensive than either putting someone on the dole for the rest of their life, or letting people "die in the streets," which is as nonsensical as it is callous.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  Note that re-training may not be enough, if structural unemployment is still significant. To describe this problem, I like the analogy of feeding dogs in a desert island: 1 desert island with nothing to eat, 100 dogs. Every day, a chopper comes in and drop 95 pieces of meat. 95 dogs can eat, the 5 slowest are left starving. A dog trainer sees that, and decides to train the slower dogs so they can eat. And they do. Now 5 other dogs are left starving. My current take on this is, employment is overrated. We should find other ways to live our lives.