9 ms·

While there is more going on, the subtle comment about hustle culture resonates with me. Cheap labor exploitation called "hustling", and currently everyone seem

While there is more going on, the subtle comment about hustle culture resonates with me. Cheap labor exploitation called "hustling", and currently everyone seems to want to have a hustle. It's because we are getting screwed at our day jobs, folks, and those same employers are exploiting you again when you leave and start your hustle.

johnisgood 7y ago
What does exploitation mean exactly in this context? What does it mean to be exploited by an employer?
- soVeryTired 7y ago
  I guess any sort of significant power imbalance. Does your team generate good revenue for the company but you still get paid peanuts? Does your work ask for overtime but fail to allow you to take time off when you need it? Do they ask for commitment to the job, while being prepared to terminate you at a moment's notice when time gets tough?
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    Yeah, but you get into that contract voluntarily, so you sort of know what you signed up for, and regardless, you have the option to quit. This is why I do not understand the complaints.
    - adamsea 7y ago
      Mmmm if you don’t work and make money in the US you’ll be in a bad way, and since the majority of employers have the conditions described, and most job seekers have little negotiating leverage on these issues, the choice to sign the employment contract is voluntary, yes, but so much behind the circumstances and conditions of that signing is beyond the power of an individual to effect or influence through their choices. Which is why the saying “strength in numbers” is a saying.
    - binarymax 7y ago
      This choice is an illusion for anyone not in the higher echelons of society and your comment is the result of confirmation bias. Most people need to work and will take what is available to them and suffer the reality of a lopsided contract at will and vast underpayment. Most people can't just quit if they don't like their job - they will lose their only source of meager income, healthcare, and possibly their home.
    - rleigh 7y ago
      No, it's not entirely voluntary. It's a necessity to live. I might be able to pick and choose between several employers, but ultimately I'm going to have to choose one of them. There's a power imbalance between employee and employer, and that will translate into a negotiating disadvantage; the future employee is at a disadvantage here.
      - johnisgood 7y ago
        > No, it's not entirely voluntary. In this case, it is not entirely voluntary for the employers either as they need employees for their business to function. > but ultimately I'm going to have to choose one of them No, you can become your own employer, for example. > There's a power imbalance between employee and employer, and that will translate into a negotiating disadvantage It depends on the state of the market. Right now, the job market is supposedly very good for programmers (employees). Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people doing some task they want done. If you do not think it is fair trade, then do not do it. You are allowed to grow your own food, or pick berries.
        orthecreedence 7y ago
        Capital holders have most of the power, due to the unemployment pool. > No, you can become your own employer, for example. Not without capital, and you generally get capital by already having capital (collateral). > It depends on the state of the market. Right now, the job market is supposedly very good for programmers (employees). Good for programmers! But in general, the job market is not as good for most people as it is for programmers. > Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people doing some task they want done. Right, this is a "voluntary" transaction entered by both people, but the argument is that there is a power imbalance that influences this transaction and tips the scales toward the employer (in the general sense, I'm sure we can find single examples where this is not the case). Not only this, but the balance is tipped even further by a system that overwhelmingly encourages debt (yes, voluntary, I know, but socially involuntary), essentially shackling people to needing higher amounts of income (and therefor relying on their employer more). It's possible to be debt-free and have a high-paying job, but it's exceedingly difficult, and you're essentially limited to a handful of industries.
    - supersleepgrump 7y ago
      Although At-Will employment gives the option for an employee to quit and seek out new employment whenever they want, At-Will explicitly favors employers. Most people would simply prefer a raise at a job they love---
    - aiisjustanif 7y ago
      Sounds like it isn't the most sane option in a society where human needs are attached to a job. The job provides health care and covers housing cost, and retirement pay. The job can short you and thus you look for a side hustle. But people also look for a side hustle to move up to the higher side of where they are in the class scale, or find retirement safety.
  - rossenberg79 7y ago
    There is no power imbalance except for the ones you create for yourself. A company doesn’t have much power over an employee willing to walk away for some other job.
    - Retra 7y ago
      And you think every person should be willing to walk away for some other job? How will that play out?
      - ericd 7y ago
        Absolutely they should be willing to walk away. This is why scrimping and saving until you have some form of emergency fund is so important.
        orthecreedence 7y ago
        And you should be born with a trust fund and not have let people convince you to take on overwhelming debt when you were 17 and naive. It's all very simple. Granted, I agree with you about emergency saving, but a lot of people don't have the extra laying around when they're shackled to debt.
        ericd 7y ago
        Come on, don't be hyperbolic. You don't need a trust fund to do just fine. No one I knew growing up had a trust fund afaik. What is this victim complex my generation seems to have bought into wholesale? Who tricked you into taking on debt? Was in-state tuition not an option? As for the saving not being an option, are you sure you've cut your expenses as far as you can? If you eat out more than once per month or pay more than $30/mo for your cell phone, the answer is no. Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but people oftentimes complain about not being able to save due to student loans or whatever, and then it turns out they're being ridiculously bad with their money in so many other ways.
        7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

johnisgood 7y ago

What does exploitation mean exactly in this context? What does it mean to be exploited by an employer?

soVeryTired 7y ago
I guess any sort of significant power imbalance. Does your team generate good revenue for the company but you still get paid peanuts? Does your work ask for overtime but fail to allow you to take time off when you need it? Do they ask for commitment to the job, while being prepared to terminate you at a moment's notice when time gets tough?
- johnisgood 7y ago
  Yeah, but you get into that contract voluntarily, so you sort of know what you signed up for, and regardless, you have the option to quit. This is why I do not understand the complaints.
  - adamsea 7y ago
    Mmmm if you don’t work and make money in the US you’ll be in a bad way, and since the majority of employers have the conditions described, and most job seekers have little negotiating leverage on these issues, the choice to sign the employment contract is voluntary, yes, but so much behind the circumstances and conditions of that signing is beyond the power of an individual to effect or influence through their choices. Which is why the saying “strength in numbers” is a saying.
  - binarymax 7y ago
    This choice is an illusion for anyone not in the higher echelons of society and your comment is the result of confirmation bias. Most people need to work and will take what is available to them and suffer the reality of a lopsided contract at will and vast underpayment. Most people can't just quit if they don't like their job - they will lose their only source of meager income, healthcare, and possibly their home.
  - rleigh 7y ago
    No, it's not entirely voluntary. It's a necessity to live. I might be able to pick and choose between several employers, but ultimately I'm going to have to choose one of them. There's a power imbalance between employee and employer, and that will translate into a negotiating disadvantage; the future employee is at a disadvantage here.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      > No, it's not entirely voluntary. In this case, it is not entirely voluntary for the employers either as they need employees for their business to function. > but ultimately I'm going to have to choose one of them No, you can become your own employer, for example. > There's a power imbalance between employee and employer, and that will translate into a negotiating disadvantage It depends on the state of the market. Right now, the job market is supposedly very good for programmers (employees). Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people doing some task they want done. If you do not think it is fair trade, then do not do it. You are allowed to grow your own food, or pick berries.
      - orthecreedence 7y ago
        Capital holders have most of the power, due to the unemployment pool. > No, you can become your own employer, for example. Not without capital, and you generally get capital by already having capital (collateral). > It depends on the state of the market. Right now, the job market is supposedly very good for programmers (employees). Good for programmers! But in general, the job market is not as good for most people as it is for programmers. > Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people doing some task they want done. Right, this is a "voluntary" transaction entered by both people, but the argument is that there is a power imbalance that influences this transaction and tips the scales toward the employer (in the general sense, I'm sure we can find single examples where this is not the case). Not only this, but the balance is tipped even further by a system that overwhelmingly encourages debt (yes, voluntary, I know, but socially involuntary), essentially shackling people to needing higher amounts of income (and therefor relying on their employer more). It's possible to be debt-free and have a high-paying job, but it's exceedingly difficult, and you're essentially limited to a handful of industries.
  - supersleepgrump 7y ago
    Although At-Will employment gives the option for an employee to quit and seek out new employment whenever they want, At-Will explicitly favors employers. Most people would simply prefer a raise at a job they love---
  - aiisjustanif 7y ago
    Sounds like it isn't the most sane option in a society where human needs are attached to a job. The job provides health care and covers housing cost, and retirement pay. The job can short you and thus you look for a side hustle. But people also look for a side hustle to move up to the higher side of where they are in the class scale, or find retirement safety.
- rossenberg79 7y ago
  There is no power imbalance except for the ones you create for yourself. A company doesn’t have much power over an employee willing to walk away for some other job.
  - Retra 7y ago
    And you think every person should be willing to walk away for some other job? How will that play out?
    - ericd 7y ago
      Absolutely they should be willing to walk away. This is why scrimping and saving until you have some form of emergency fund is so important.
      - orthecreedence 7y ago
        And you should be born with a trust fund and not have let people convince you to take on overwhelming debt when you were 17 and naive. It's all very simple. Granted, I agree with you about emergency saving, but a lot of people don't have the extra laying around when they're shackled to debt.
        ericd 7y ago
        Come on, don't be hyperbolic. You don't need a trust fund to do just fine. No one I knew growing up had a trust fund afaik. What is this victim complex my generation seems to have bought into wholesale? Who tricked you into taking on debt? Was in-state tuition not an option? As for the saving not being an option, are you sure you've cut your expenses as far as you can? If you eat out more than once per month or pay more than $30/mo for your cell phone, the answer is no. Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but people oftentimes complain about not being able to save due to student loans or whatever, and then it turns out they're being ridiculously bad with their money in so many other ways.
        7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]