4 ms·

I'm not sure why anyone takes her argument seriously. Companies don't pull me over while I'm driving. Companies don't put me in prison. Companies don't extort m

by chroma 7y ago

I'm not sure why anyone takes her argument seriously. Companies don't pull me over while I'm driving. Companies don't put me in prison. Companies don't extort me under threat of violence. Companies don't enslave me. Only criminal organizations and governments do those sorts of things. At worst, companies can use existing government frameworks to coerce me (and I can use the same frameworks to coerce them). Typically, all they can do is stop paying me. Most importantly, people can switch companies far easier than they can switch governments. Changing jobs is easier than moving between states, let alone countries. Switching costs could be lower (mostly related to health insurance), but overall companies are competing pretty hard for workers. That's why they advertise positions, hire recruiters, and go to colleges and job fairs. Could you imagine governments behaving similarly? The only thing that comes close is the military, and that's because their potential recruits can choose private sector jobs.

devoply 7y ago
> Companies don't pull me over while I'm driving. They very well could pull you over, revoke your license, and forbid you from driving.... If you were driving on their land or driving their car. They have to provide no justification for these actions either. They can reassign you to do something else or simply lay you off with a short notice. > Companies don't put me in prison. Companies don't extort me under threat of violence. Companies don't enslave me. Companies can put you in prison using the state. Companies can and do extort workers on certain terms like withholding paychecks and so on. Companies absolutely enslave people by for instance telling them a myriad of ways in which they can and can not conduct their lives. Her argument is that companies are communist dictatorships and they are all communist dictatorships, so you can not escape their control no matter who you are working for. Considering that you spend most of your life under control of such governments either one or another, these governments determine most of your life. And I would say indoctrination to such governments starts with schooling which teaches you to obey and not question such governments. > Imagine a government that assigns almost everyone a superior whom they must obey. Although superiors give most inferiors a routine to follow, there is no rule of law. Orders may be arbitrary and can change any time, without prior notice or opportunity to appeal. Superiors are unaccountable to those they order around. They are neither elected nor removable by their inferiors. Inferiors have no right to complain in court . . . except in a few narrowly defined cases . . . The most highly ranked individual takes no orders but issues many. The lowest-ranked may have their bodily movements and speech minutely regulated for most of the day . . . This government does not recognize a personal or private sphere of autonomy free from sanction. It may prescribe a dress code and forbid certain hairstyles. Everyone lives under surveillance . . . Suspicious searches of their bodies and personal effects may be routine . . . The government may dictate the language spoken . . . It may forbid certain topics of discussion. People can be sanctioned for their consensual sexual activity or for their choice of spouse . . . They can be sanctioned for their political activity and required to engage in political activity they do not agree with. > The economic system of the society run by this government is communist. The government owns all the nonlabor means of production in the society it governs . . . The vast majority have no realistic option but to try to immigrate to another communist dictatorship . . . (37-38)
- chroma 7y ago
  > They very well could pull you over, revoke your license, and forbid you from driving.... If you were driving on their land or driving their car. That is not true. They can say, "You are trespassing. Leave now." (Just as anyone can if you are on their land.) They can't take away a state-issued license. I'm not sure why you think it's so terrible that someone who lets you use their car can also stop letting you use their car. Likewise, you can do the same if anyone is using your car. > They can reassign you to do something else or simply lay you off with a short notice. And I can leave for another job with short or no notice. I can use a job to learn certain skills, then immediately go work at another company. > Companies can put you in prison using the state. Only if the state determines that you've committed a crime. And anyone can do this, not just companies. In this case the power is with the state, not the companies. > Companies can and do extort workers on certain terms like withholding paychecks and so on. That's mostly not true. If you are employed at a company and they don't pay you, they've opened themselves to a lawsuit. If you quit or are fired, in some states companies can withhold the last paycheck for a limited amount of time. Usually this can only be done to encourage former employees to return company equipment. Even without government laws enforcing these things, if a company becomes known for such behavior they'll have a harder time attracting talent. > Companies absolutely enslave people by for instance telling them a myriad of ways in which they can and can not conduct their lives. In slavery you're not allowed to leave. If your employer wants you to do something, you are free to say, "Go fuck yourself." and find another. Contrast this to say… jury duty, where you can be fined and imprisoned for not doing what the state orders you to do. > Her argument is that companies are communist dictatorships and they are all communist dictatorships, so you can not escape their control no matter who you are working for. Considering that you spend most of your life under control of such governments either one or another, these governments determine most of your life. I understand her argument, and the reason it is incorrect is because unlike governments, the cost to switch companies is tiny. Most employment is terminated at the volition of the employee, not the employer.[1] If twice as many people are quitting their jobs than are fired or laid off, how can it be that people are in thrall to their employers? Wouldn't the ratio be the opposite if that were the case? Again, the cost of switching jobs is lower than the cost of moving between states. If you think we have freedom of movement in the US, then we clearly aren't subjects in company dictatorships. I work at my current job because it's the best one I've found. That's true for pretty much everyone who is employed. Workers compete for jobs and employers compete for workers. Neither side can coerce the other. This is not at all like governments. With governments, you're mostly stuck with the one you're born into. There are only a few specific, difficult ways to switch governments, and at every step there is coercion. 1. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm According to the BLS, 3.4 million people quit their jobs in June of 2019 compared to 1.7 million who were subject to layoffs or otherwise terminated.
lemmsjid 7y ago
You aren't addressing the crux of her argument. "Smith underestimated economies of scale. His butcher is now working the night shift on the line in an industrial meatpacking plant." The key point being that early theoreticians of the free market were motivated by humanistic impulses, but failed to understand how large and powerful corporations could become, relative to the bargaining power of the individual. When you talk about the cost of switching jobs, and how you will be actively recruited to your next one, you are talking from the perspective of a minority at the apex of the industrial food chain who has that kind of labor power. The economies of scale in the global economy are such that an entire industry can and will pull itself out of a large region because the labor is cheaper and the laws are friendlier in another region. The bargaining power of the individual is negligible in such a circumstance, and alternative work is hard to come by, or is impoverishing. While third world countries are in truly terrible plights due to this kind of situation, large portions of the United States are subject to the same forces. While, to your point, the workers in those areas are not subject to actual physical coercion, the effects (drug abuse, suicide) show that the spiritual suffering is quite there and quite effective.
- chroma 7y ago
  Adam Smith was trying to answer the question, "Why is everyone suddenly becoming richer?" and the result of that was the beginning of the field of economics. He made many observations, models, and predictions, but I don't recall smaller firm sizes being one of them. That prediction would certainly go against the evidence around him at the time. He published The Wealth of Nations when the British East India Company was at its peak and commanded an army of a quarter million people. > The bargaining power of the individual is negligible in such a circumstance, and alternative work is hard to come by, or is impoverishing. While third world countries are in truly terrible plights due to this kind of situation, large portions of the United States are subject to the same forces. Your point about terrible plights simply isn't true. Wages in the developing world have increased greatly. Since I've been born, over a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Those living on <$1/day are now less than 10% of the world population.[1] And in the US, non-managerial wages have stayed the same or increased since 1960.[2] (These statements are accounting for inflation, of course.) US suicide rates have increased, yes, but they're still lower than they were in the 1950s and they're below countries such as Switzerland. Last I checked, Switzerland wasn't exactly a land of despair. Something is causing more people to commit suicide, but it's probably not the economy. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
blunte 7y ago
> Companies don't put me in prison No, but they can create situations where you have a debt to them, and they influence local enforcement policy that results in you being in "debtors' prison". > Companies don't enslave me. Just as one example, when Walmart comes to your small town and kills many of the local small businesses, you're left with two choices: move to another town, or work at Walmart. You have family/roots in the area, so you work at Walmart. And now you may have a lower wage, fewer benefits, and generally poorer options for living compared to life before Walmart moved in. > Only criminal organizations and governments do those sorts of things. It really can be argued that many large companies are criminal organizations, at least by some definitions. Walmart has lost high profile court cases with respect to worker treatment, and it was proved that Walmart intentionally broke laws. That is criminal. Some very large banks have been proved to have actively laundered large amounts of money for criminal organizations. Many other large companies have been exposed as behaving in criminal ways. Whistleblowers in some such companies have had their careers and lives ruined by the companies they worked for.

by chroma 7y ago

devoply 7y ago

> Companies don't pull me over while I'm driving. They very well could pull you over, revoke your license, and forbid you from driving.... If you were driving on their land or driving their car. They have to provide no justification for these actions either. They can reassign you to do something else or simply lay you off with a short notice. > Companies don't put me in prison. Companies don't extort me under threat of violence. Companies don't enslave me. Companies can put you in prison using the state. Companies can and do extort workers on certain terms like withholding paychecks and so on. Companies absolutely enslave people by for instance telling them a myriad of ways in which they can and can not conduct their lives. Her argument is that companies are communist dictatorships and they are all communist dictatorships, so you can not escape their control no matter who you are working for. Considering that you spend most of your life under control of such governments either one or another, these governments determine most of your life. And I would say indoctrination to such governments starts with schooling which teaches you to obey and not question such governments. > Imagine a government that assigns almost everyone a superior whom they must obey. Although superiors give most inferiors a routine to follow, there is no rule of law. Orders may be arbitrary and can change any time, without prior notice or opportunity to appeal. Superiors are unaccountable to those they order around. They are neither elected nor removable by their inferiors. Inferiors have no right to complain in court . . . except in a few narrowly defined cases . . . The most highly ranked individual takes no orders but issues many. The lowest-ranked may have their bodily movements and speech minutely regulated for most of the day . . . This government does not recognize a personal or private sphere of autonomy free from sanction. It may prescribe a dress code and forbid certain hairstyles. Everyone lives under surveillance . . . Suspicious searches of their bodies and personal effects may be routine . . . The government may dictate the language spoken . . . It may forbid certain topics of discussion. People can be sanctioned for their consensual sexual activity or for their choice of spouse . . . They can be sanctioned for their political activity and required to engage in political activity they do not agree with. > The economic system of the society run by this government is communist. The government owns all the nonlabor means of production in the society it governs . . . The vast majority have no realistic option but to try to immigrate to another communist dictatorship . . . (37-38)

chroma 7y ago
> They very well could pull you over, revoke your license, and forbid you from driving.... If you were driving on their land or driving their car. That is not true. They can say, "You are trespassing. Leave now." (Just as anyone can if you are on their land.) They can't take away a state-issued license. I'm not sure why you think it's so terrible that someone who lets you use their car can also stop letting you use their car. Likewise, you can do the same if anyone is using your car. > They can reassign you to do something else or simply lay you off with a short notice. And I can leave for another job with short or no notice. I can use a job to learn certain skills, then immediately go work at another company. > Companies can put you in prison using the state. Only if the state determines that you've committed a crime. And anyone can do this, not just companies. In this case the power is with the state, not the companies. > Companies can and do extort workers on certain terms like withholding paychecks and so on. That's mostly not true. If you are employed at a company and they don't pay you, they've opened themselves to a lawsuit. If you quit or are fired, in some states companies can withhold the last paycheck for a limited amount of time. Usually this can only be done to encourage former employees to return company equipment. Even without government laws enforcing these things, if a company becomes known for such behavior they'll have a harder time attracting talent. > Companies absolutely enslave people by for instance telling them a myriad of ways in which they can and can not conduct their lives. In slavery you're not allowed to leave. If your employer wants you to do something, you are free to say, "Go fuck yourself." and find another. Contrast this to say… jury duty, where you can be fined and imprisoned for not doing what the state orders you to do. > Her argument is that companies are communist dictatorships and they are all communist dictatorships, so you can not escape their control no matter who you are working for. Considering that you spend most of your life under control of such governments either one or another, these governments determine most of your life. I understand her argument, and the reason it is incorrect is because unlike governments, the cost to switch companies is tiny. Most employment is terminated at the volition of the employee, not the employer.[1] If twice as many people are quitting their jobs than are fired or laid off, how can it be that people are in thrall to their employers? Wouldn't the ratio be the opposite if that were the case? Again, the cost of switching jobs is lower than the cost of moving between states. If you think we have freedom of movement in the US, then we clearly aren't subjects in company dictatorships. I work at my current job because it's the best one I've found. That's true for pretty much everyone who is employed. Workers compete for jobs and employers compete for workers. Neither side can coerce the other. This is not at all like governments. With governments, you're mostly stuck with the one you're born into. There are only a few specific, difficult ways to switch governments, and at every step there is coercion. 1. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm According to the BLS, 3.4 million people quit their jobs in June of 2019 compared to 1.7 million who were subject to layoffs or otherwise terminated.

lemmsjid 7y ago

You aren't addressing the crux of her argument. "Smith underestimated economies of scale. His butcher is now working the night shift on the line in an industrial meatpacking plant." The key point being that early theoreticians of the free market were motivated by humanistic impulses, but failed to understand how large and powerful corporations could become, relative to the bargaining power of the individual. When you talk about the cost of switching jobs, and how you will be actively recruited to your next one, you are talking from the perspective of a minority at the apex of the industrial food chain who has that kind of labor power. The economies of scale in the global economy are such that an entire industry can and will pull itself out of a large region because the labor is cheaper and the laws are friendlier in another region. The bargaining power of the individual is negligible in such a circumstance, and alternative work is hard to come by, or is impoverishing. While third world countries are in truly terrible plights due to this kind of situation, large portions of the United States are subject to the same forces. While, to your point, the workers in those areas are not subject to actual physical coercion, the effects (drug abuse, suicide) show that the spiritual suffering is quite there and quite effective.

chroma 7y ago
Adam Smith was trying to answer the question, "Why is everyone suddenly becoming richer?" and the result of that was the beginning of the field of economics. He made many observations, models, and predictions, but I don't recall smaller firm sizes being one of them. That prediction would certainly go against the evidence around him at the time. He published The Wealth of Nations when the British East India Company was at its peak and commanded an army of a quarter million people. > The bargaining power of the individual is negligible in such a circumstance, and alternative work is hard to come by, or is impoverishing. While third world countries are in truly terrible plights due to this kind of situation, large portions of the United States are subject to the same forces. Your point about terrible plights simply isn't true. Wages in the developing world have increased greatly. Since I've been born, over a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Those living on <$1/day are now less than 10% of the world population.[1] And in the US, non-managerial wages have stayed the same or increased since 1960.[2] (These statements are accounting for inflation, of course.) US suicide rates have increased, yes, but they're still lower than they were in the 1950s and they're below countries such as Switzerland. Last I checked, Switzerland wasn't exactly a land of despair. Something is causing more people to commit suicide, but it's probably not the economy. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

blunte 7y ago

> Companies don't put me in prison No, but they can create situations where you have a debt to them, and they influence local enforcement policy that results in you being in "debtors' prison". > Companies don't enslave me. Just as one example, when Walmart comes to your small town and kills many of the local small businesses, you're left with two choices: move to another town, or work at Walmart. You have family/roots in the area, so you work at Walmart. And now you may have a lower wage, fewer benefits, and generally poorer options for living compared to life before Walmart moved in. > Only criminal organizations and governments do those sorts of things. It really can be argued that many large companies are criminal organizations, at least by some definitions. Walmart has lost high profile court cases with respect to worker treatment, and it was proved that Walmart intentionally broke laws. That is criminal. Some very large banks have been proved to have actively laundered large amounts of money for criminal organizations. Many other large companies have been exposed as behaving in criminal ways. Whistleblowers in some such companies have had their careers and lives ruined by the companies they worked for.