3 ms·

Sure, but that's not some kind of neutral, organic development. It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, to increase their own wealt

Sure, but that's not some kind of neutral, organic development. It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, to increase their own wealth and power. Shifting all the "liability" onto workers, creating an economy where everyone but the wealthiest are fungible serfs, is a specific set of values and decisions advanced by these people because it benefits them.

iguy 9y ago
It is _partly_ organic, or rather, technological. General Motors did everything in house (partly) for the same reason the hotel did: the computers needed to keep track of today's supply chain / subcontracting payments & management didn't exist. The efficient thing was to have one centralised payroll department cutting checks. But politics played a big role too. It deserves to be noted here that almost all the employees at this (1960s NYC, say) hotel were born Americans. While today a large proportion would not be, a factor which tips the balance of power towards their managers.
- knuththetruth 9y ago
  Businesses like Costco have supply chain dynamics as complex as any hotel chain, if not moreso, and they still manage to treat their employees better and more equitably. I don’t disagree that technology has changed these dynamics, but the way power and wealth has been distributed in response to these changes is almost exclusively upward and to fewer and fewer people. Nothing about that is neutral or organic, unless you’re talking about the trajectory of wealth and political power under some Marxist analysis of Capital accumulation.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
> It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, So legislation purportedly for employee protection backfires by making direct hires uneconomical and you call this " something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians"?
- knuththetruth 9y ago
  By an reasonable comparison to other wealthy economies in the developed world, no such labor protections exist in the US. What little protections are in place have been systematically under attack since at least the 1970s. If we we're talking about somewhere like France, perhaps this argument would hold water. Otherwise, seems like a strawman.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Yes, I do. Because it's something they do specifically to avoid responsibility. And the rich are adults, who are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

iguy 9y ago

It is _partly_ organic, or rather, technological. General Motors did everything in house (partly) for the same reason the hotel did: the computers needed to keep track of today's supply chain / subcontracting payments & management didn't exist. The efficient thing was to have one centralised payroll department cutting checks. But politics played a big role too. It deserves to be noted here that almost all the employees at this (1960s NYC, say) hotel were born Americans. While today a large proportion would not be, a factor which tips the balance of power towards their managers.

knuththetruth 9y ago
Businesses like Costco have supply chain dynamics as complex as any hotel chain, if not moreso, and they still manage to treat their employees better and more equitably. I don’t disagree that technology has changed these dynamics, but the way power and wealth has been distributed in response to these changes is almost exclusively upward and to fewer and fewer people. Nothing about that is neutral or organic, unless you’re talking about the trajectory of wealth and political power under some Marxist analysis of Capital accumulation.

adrianratnapala 9y ago

> It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, So legislation purportedly for employee protection backfires by making direct hires uneconomical and you call this " something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians"?

knuththetruth 9y ago
By an reasonable comparison to other wealthy economies in the developed world, no such labor protections exist in the US. What little protections are in place have been systematically under attack since at least the 1970s. If we we're talking about somewhere like France, perhaps this argument would hold water. Otherwise, seems like a strawman.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Yes, I do. Because it's something they do specifically to avoid responsibility. And the rich are adults, who are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their actions.