6 ms·

Employment is a voluntary transaction, entered into by both parties. One should always focus upon increasing their own skill set such that an employer may be ab

by bobbob1921 9y ago

Employment is a voluntary transaction, entered into by both parties. One should always focus upon increasing their own skill set such that an employer may be able to make your life temporarily difficult, but your skills and value to an employer (or future employer) are such that they can't "ruin your life".

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Employment isn't voluntartly: there is strong economic coercion to be employed and high degrees of friction are introduced to make that coercion more effective. Urbanization fundamentally has been engineered to create "wage slaves", who are basically modern sharecroppers (though the system has some extra steps).
- b6 9y ago
  > Urbanization fundamentally has been engineered to create "wage slaves" Suppose someone was born out in the forest, and there were no cities, no societies, no technology. Would you call that person a sustenance slave? Would you say that their foraging was involuntary?
  - marmaduke 9y ago
    the distinction is that there is a willful effort to exploit and to enslave on the part of someone (be it a person, corporation or market
    - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
      > the distinction is that there is a willful effort to exploit and to enslave on the part of someone (be it a person, corporation or market That's right, and it's a shame it's been downvoted.
  - boie0025 9y ago
    Very insightful question. This gives me an alternative context in which to frame the "wage slave" concept. Thank you.
    - kijin 9y ago
      Also for context: Just because an alternative is worse or "just as bad" doesn't mean that the status quo is okay. The United States is fucked up in many ways, regardless of the fact that Somalia has had it much worse.
  - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
    >> Urbanization fundamentally has been engineered to create "wage slaves" > Suppose someone was born out in the forest, and there were no cities, no societies, no technology. Would you call that person a sustenance slave? Would you say that their foraging was involuntary? No, they are not a slave because they have no master except nature. A wage slave has at least one master: his boss and the system that forces him to work for one.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Foraging (or farming, hunting, etc) is involuntary. Nature has compulsive power via biological needs and imperatives. The difference lies in the fundamental difference between natural law and synthetic human systems. Entropy isn't your master, it's a fact of your own existence. By contrast, the present economic system is a synthetic construct made by other humans to exploit you, designed with largely that purpose, co-opting your biological needs for coercive power, and doesn't necessarily need to happen. That's what makes one slavery and the other not. The difference is so obvious, I actually am confused why you think conflating physics with political norms was appropriate.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      If the employment market is equivalent to slavery, it not obviously so. Saying it was designed for our exploitation implies a level of conspiracy and central control that I find dubious.
  - mSparks43 9y ago
    depends if their mom and pop sent them to work the fields. There's many such communities throughout the world. Some even keep real slaves. (particularily in Saudi Arabia) Most of society (and the wage slave concept) is about human farming. would you say you are a farmer or livestock?
  - pasquinelli 9y ago
    They don't have a boss, they can't be fired, they don't generate wealth that someone else keeps. On the other side there are huge material benefits to coordinating with many people, even if that coordination is done via a system that exploits you. Not a good comparison.
- wyager 9y ago
  Being employed isn't voluntary because there are finite resources available to humanity and no one wants to waste those resources supporting a lazy person who doesn't contribute anything. Being employed at a particular organization is, in fact, voluntary. You are not obligated to stay at one employer forever.
  - taway333 9y ago
    What a nice false dichotomy, we are free as in free to chose our salve master, and there are only 2 possible states of humanity, to be a slave or to be lazy / a useless eater .. lets not talk about the slave masters and the hollywood-production american dream(tm) illusion that _every slave_ can make it to the top (which, for everyone who actually checks is just what it is, propaganda) .. I want to applaud the institution that managed to wipe..ehm teach you such a illuminating world view, very, very .. convenient
    - pionar 9y ago
      Calling a situation in which an employer trades you money for your time and effort "slave labor" is a disgusting metaphor and an affront to actual slaves. You should be ashamed. I enter into employment agreements knowing full well that it's a business transaction. The business and I have agreed to an amount of money (and other benefits) in exchange for my labor. It's not about the American dream. It's not about "slave labor". It's about you give me money for services I provide. When either of us decides that deal isn't advantageous for us anymore, then we end that agreement. Stop being edgy.
      - t123 9y ago
        If you wouldn't [work for a "slave-master"] you'd end up homeless on the street, no option to enter university, change your qualification, travel and get some experience abroad, start a business, nothing, absolutely 0 social mobility. Todays slavery does not need chains, it only needs ideology "on the west"(of which direct application you are a great example of), and an unprecedented murderous machine abroad(which you have no idea about, not the slightest)
- valuearb 9y ago
  Real slaves would find your pedantic definition of "wage slaves" offensive. No one has the perfect job, everyone thinks they should make more, have more benefits, more freedom. But everyone has choices. You don't have to participate in the rat race, you can stop letting material possessions drive your lifestyle decisions.
  - defined 9y ago
    Everyone has choices, it's true. The choices that are available, however, have an extreme variance from person to person. At the extremely shitty end, Viktor Frankl, while a captive of a Nazi death camp, worked out that when all other choices are taken from a person, the only remaining one is to die with dignity. But it's a choice, right? At the other end of the spectrum, choices may include where to vacation this winter or if the maid should be fired. The bottom line is that the quality and quantity of choices vary so much, depending on luck and pluck, that it's a bit glib to say "everyone has choices", including, I guess, the choice between working a crappy, abusive, mean job or two to make ends meet, or starve.
  - prodmerc 9y ago
    Depends on the slave, but I call bullshit on "don't have to participate". If I don't participate, in 3-4 months I'd be homeless and with nothing to eat. What gives?
    - valuearb 9y ago
      I didn't say you didn't have to work. I said you didn't have to participate in the rat race. For most of human history, choosing not to work for 3 months meant starvation and death. Hunter-gatherers had to work. My brother is 50 years old and has delivered pizzas for about the last 20 years. He only works enough to afford to rent a room, own a car, and pay for an annual ski pass, and skiing/volleyball gear. He spends his free time on the mountain and the lake. He obviously doesn't own many material possessions and his retirement isn't going to be pretty. But that choice was his, he had opportunities to work corporate and make far more money, own more stuff, and maybe raise a family, but he chose to have more freedom and the lifestyle he preferred.
pikzen 9y ago
Employment is a relation of subordination, inherently unbalanced. People also happen to need money to live, making work not a voluntary transaction, unless you consider death a viable option. That is not considering other factors, such as having to feed other members of your family. It is made even more unbalanced by the amount of influence your employer can have in your life by firing you, as opposed to the influence you can have on him by quitting. Employment is coercion. I wish HNers would get their heads out of their tech arses and face the reality. Most people do _not_ have a choice where they work. Most people cannot afford to quit. Most people don't have jobs where they can increase their skillsets. Most people do not have time to read HN while they enjoy their 10 AM pause in their comfy sofa while working from home. You are, for the most part, amongst the most privileged people in the world. Yet you continue to spew the "employment is voluntary" propanganda because you never had to face actual hardships. Worse, you push people of lower classes even further in the ground, when what you should be doing is elevating them to make a better and fairer society.
- guntars 9y ago
  People don't need money to live - they need food and shelter that is typically provided by someone else's work. Find a way to pay them directly and you don't need to work for an asshole boss anymore. The problem is, a lot of people are in a situation where they don't have that much to offer.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

Employment isn't voluntartly: there is strong economic coercion to be employed and high degrees of friction are introduced to make that coercion more effective. Urbanization fundamentally has been engineered to create "wage slaves", who are basically modern sharecroppers (though the system has some extra steps).

b6 9y ago
> Urbanization fundamentally has been engineered to create "wage slaves" Suppose someone was born out in the forest, and there were no cities, no societies, no technology. Would you call that person a sustenance slave? Would you say that their foraging was involuntary?
- marmaduke 9y ago
  the distinction is that there is a willful effort to exploit and to enslave on the part of someone (be it a person, corporation or market
  - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
    > the distinction is that there is a willful effort to exploit and to enslave on the part of someone (be it a person, corporation or market That's right, and it's a shame it's been downvoted.
- boie0025 9y ago
  Very insightful question. This gives me an alternative context in which to frame the "wage slave" concept. Thank you.
  - kijin 9y ago
    Also for context: Just because an alternative is worse or "just as bad" doesn't mean that the status quo is okay. The United States is fucked up in many ways, regardless of the fact that Somalia has had it much worse.
- DashRattlesnake 9y ago
  >> Urbanization fundamentally has been engineered to create "wage slaves" > Suppose someone was born out in the forest, and there were no cities, no societies, no technology. Would you call that person a sustenance slave? Would you say that their foraging was involuntary? No, they are not a slave because they have no master except nature. A wage slave has at least one master: his boss and the system that forces him to work for one.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Foraging (or farming, hunting, etc) is involuntary. Nature has compulsive power via biological needs and imperatives. The difference lies in the fundamental difference between natural law and synthetic human systems. Entropy isn't your master, it's a fact of your own existence. By contrast, the present economic system is a synthetic construct made by other humans to exploit you, designed with largely that purpose, co-opting your biological needs for coercive power, and doesn't necessarily need to happen. That's what makes one slavery and the other not. The difference is so obvious, I actually am confused why you think conflating physics with political norms was appropriate.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    If the employment market is equivalent to slavery, it not obviously so. Saying it was designed for our exploitation implies a level of conspiracy and central control that I find dubious.
- mSparks43 9y ago
  depends if their mom and pop sent them to work the fields. There's many such communities throughout the world. Some even keep real slaves. (particularily in Saudi Arabia) Most of society (and the wage slave concept) is about human farming. would you say you are a farmer or livestock?
- pasquinelli 9y ago
  They don't have a boss, they can't be fired, they don't generate wealth that someone else keeps. On the other side there are huge material benefits to coordinating with many people, even if that coordination is done via a system that exploits you. Not a good comparison.
wyager 9y ago
Being employed isn't voluntary because there are finite resources available to humanity and no one wants to waste those resources supporting a lazy person who doesn't contribute anything. Being employed at a particular organization is, in fact, voluntary. You are not obligated to stay at one employer forever.
- taway333 9y ago
  What a nice false dichotomy, we are free as in free to chose our salve master, and there are only 2 possible states of humanity, to be a slave or to be lazy / a useless eater .. lets not talk about the slave masters and the hollywood-production american dream(tm) illusion that _every slave_ can make it to the top (which, for everyone who actually checks is just what it is, propaganda) .. I want to applaud the institution that managed to wipe..ehm teach you such a illuminating world view, very, very .. convenient
  - pionar 9y ago
    Calling a situation in which an employer trades you money for your time and effort "slave labor" is a disgusting metaphor and an affront to actual slaves. You should be ashamed. I enter into employment agreements knowing full well that it's a business transaction. The business and I have agreed to an amount of money (and other benefits) in exchange for my labor. It's not about the American dream. It's not about "slave labor". It's about you give me money for services I provide. When either of us decides that deal isn't advantageous for us anymore, then we end that agreement. Stop being edgy.
    - t123 9y ago
      If you wouldn't [work for a "slave-master"] you'd end up homeless on the street, no option to enter university, change your qualification, travel and get some experience abroad, start a business, nothing, absolutely 0 social mobility. Todays slavery does not need chains, it only needs ideology "on the west"(of which direct application you are a great example of), and an unprecedented murderous machine abroad(which you have no idea about, not the slightest)
valuearb 9y ago
Real slaves would find your pedantic definition of "wage slaves" offensive. No one has the perfect job, everyone thinks they should make more, have more benefits, more freedom. But everyone has choices. You don't have to participate in the rat race, you can stop letting material possessions drive your lifestyle decisions.
- defined 9y ago
  Everyone has choices, it's true. The choices that are available, however, have an extreme variance from person to person. At the extremely shitty end, Viktor Frankl, while a captive of a Nazi death camp, worked out that when all other choices are taken from a person, the only remaining one is to die with dignity. But it's a choice, right? At the other end of the spectrum, choices may include where to vacation this winter or if the maid should be fired. The bottom line is that the quality and quantity of choices vary so much, depending on luck and pluck, that it's a bit glib to say "everyone has choices", including, I guess, the choice between working a crappy, abusive, mean job or two to make ends meet, or starve.
- prodmerc 9y ago
  Depends on the slave, but I call bullshit on "don't have to participate". If I don't participate, in 3-4 months I'd be homeless and with nothing to eat. What gives?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    I didn't say you didn't have to work. I said you didn't have to participate in the rat race. For most of human history, choosing not to work for 3 months meant starvation and death. Hunter-gatherers had to work. My brother is 50 years old and has delivered pizzas for about the last 20 years. He only works enough to afford to rent a room, own a car, and pay for an annual ski pass, and skiing/volleyball gear. He spends his free time on the mountain and the lake. He obviously doesn't own many material possessions and his retirement isn't going to be pretty. But that choice was his, he had opportunities to work corporate and make far more money, own more stuff, and maybe raise a family, but he chose to have more freedom and the lifestyle he preferred.

pikzen 9y ago

Employment is a relation of subordination, inherently unbalanced. People also happen to need money to live, making work not a voluntary transaction, unless you consider death a viable option. That is not considering other factors, such as having to feed other members of your family. It is made even more unbalanced by the amount of influence your employer can have in your life by firing you, as opposed to the influence you can have on him by quitting. Employment is coercion. I wish HNers would get their heads out of their tech arses and face the reality. Most people do _not_ have a choice where they work. Most people cannot afford to quit. Most people don't have jobs where they can increase their skillsets. Most people do not have time to read HN while they enjoy their 10 AM pause in their comfy sofa while working from home. You are, for the most part, amongst the most privileged people in the world. Yet you continue to spew the "employment is voluntary" propanganda because you never had to face actual hardships. Worse, you push people of lower classes even further in the ground, when what you should be doing is elevating them to make a better and fairer society.

guntars 9y ago
People don't need money to live - they need food and shelter that is typically provided by someone else's work. Find a way to pay them directly and you don't need to work for an asshole boss anymore. The problem is, a lot of people are in a situation where they don't have that much to offer.