4 ms·

> This illusion has been shattered first by the employers (outsourcing, at-will employment, gig economy), and now the employees (ghosting, switching firms witho

> This illusion has been shattered first by the employers (outsourcing, at-will employment, gig economy), and now the employees (ghosting, switching firms without notice). This wasn't an illusion, companies actually did take care of employees and had pensions and full-time jobs and retraining and stuff. Also, ghosting and employees bouncing is a symptom of the employers not providing any loyalty to their employees. Boomers and GenX stayed for 30 years when they had pensions, Millenials would too.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Is it possible that the existence of companies themselves is subject to more volatility? How can they provide stability when they themselves have unstable sources of income? I've only been around for a little more than 3 decades, but I've seen many markets and businesses be transformed. Vastly fewer numbers of travel agents, many retail establishments, tv channels, secretaries, hotel front desk, self check out are needed. Not to mention the effects of a drastic drop in birthrates. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-market.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-...
- dhhdhdsbdb 7y ago
  Otoh, we have far more marketers, professional writers, video editors, programmers, and people who make their own profits via YouTube etc. And a drastic drop in birth rate should mean fewer people so favor labor.
  - seisvelas 7y ago
    Declining birth rate would also reduce demand for labor, not just supply, no? Assuming that the relationship between population and demand for labor is linear (probably isn't, I don't know economics).
    - curryst 7y ago
      I think it's a delayed effect. As the populace ages, people who are retired (from when birthrates were higher) will make up a larger percentage of the total population. There's some existing info on this out there, but most of what I have seen focuses on how this will impact Social Security in the US.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Birth rates in the US mean nothing if the birth rates elsewhere are high -- immigrants, legal or otherwise, will make up the difference.
- mjevans 7y ago
  That's just a reason why all of the benefits need to be government (and taxes on corporations to pay for them) backed things that are retained across jobs.
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    but, isn't that like, socialism? /s
  - eikenberry 7y ago
    They don't need to be government backed, just not tied to an employer/job. Much like current retirement plans are not tied to a specific company.
    - brewdad 7y ago
      401k is government backed. The name itself refers to the law that brought them into existence. Just as Roth IRAs are named for the Senator who proposed them. Without the backing of the government, your retirement plan would solely consist of what you save and you'd be taxed on it all along the way.
      - kyleperik 7y ago
        I'm not sure that's what was meant by government backed. The government doesn't pay for your retirement fund, a Roth IRA just doesn't charge tax on withdrawals.
        mjevans 7y ago
        My intent was the entire benefits provisioning package outsourced to the government. This way irrespective of if heath coverage (it's not really insurance, which is a separate debate), paid time off of all kinds, and all other pre-tax line items are an entirely separate income stream and go over to the government managed pool of resources. The compensation rate for all such items might thus become far more standardized, and all of the bureaucratic conformance for such items would be there as well. This would be an exceedingly small business friendly move as suddenly a lot of the headaches of employing someone would just be paid for with a simple 'tax'. It would also be very worker friendly as all of those things and seniority/etc would similarly be paid for with that 'tax'. This does assume that there's a uniform allocation of resources per employee (I know there isn't today), or that there's a standard appreciation track for employees (there isn't today)... or that there might be multiple standard ranks of benefits (which would need to be more clearly advertised in job descriptions)... However everything really would be easier for everyone if we actually had this system; the only entities that would benefit from the status quo in a meaningful way are large corporations with enough employees to justify full time HR and legal staff.
- Ancalagon 7y ago
  I would say sure, if it werent for the fact that a lot of major corporations are currently having some of their most profitable years ever. And if you consider companies like Apple that are sitting on literal mountains of cash, this argument breaks down.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    I heard Apple is issueing bonds, since interest rates are low. Can't fathom why.
    - Ancalagon 7y ago
      It might be an accounting deal to avoid paying higher taxes?
    - wj 7y ago
      They can borrow money at a few percent interest rather than bring their profits from overseas back to the US and pay the corporate tax rate on it.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    The link in my comment clearly shows that most of the profits are going to a small number of corporations. This is even more evidence that companies are more unstable (compared to period between WW2 and now). From the article: >In 2015, for example, the top 200 companies by earnings accounted for all of the profits in the stock market, according to calculations by Kathleen Kahle, a professor of finance at the University of Arizona, and Professor Stulz. In aggregate, the remaining 3,281 publicly listed companies lost money. The employees of those 200 companies are in a good spot, but not the remaining 3,281. The consolidation due to vertical integration, automation, outsourcing are all resulting in reduced demand for labor, hence the lagging wages and instability.
magicnubs 7y ago
> companies actually did take care of employees Was this primarily due to employees having more leverage and demanding it (because union rights were a lot stronger)?
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  Unions were far stronger yes. And so were communities. The legal changes are minor, compared to the changes from a high-trust society to whatever we are now.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    Capital doesn't run things around here, managers do. Think about that.
- taurath 7y ago
  I'd say its primarily because the original purpose of a corporation wasn't shareholder value at the expense of all other things, like benefiting the community, employee wellbeing. It was supposed to be the responsibility of the employer to take care of loyal employees. The 80s and the age of corporate raiders and activist investors changed that.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Boomers and GenX stayed for 30 years when they had pensions, Uh, GenX was being born as private pensions were being phased out; GenX was 401K at best from day one for the most part, outside of public sector.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  The oldest Gen X is almost 60 now, many entered the workforce when there were still defined benefit plans. But you're essentially right, most missed the boat.
  - bproven 7y ago
    Not quite that old, but early to mid-50s - Pretty sure GenX is 1965 - 1980. I'm on the tail end of that and yeah no pensions... Baby boomers got all the good stuff :)
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      The range is all over the place. Boomers range from 1960 to 1964 depending on the person doing the definition.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Is it possible that the existence of companies themselves is subject to more volatility? How can they provide stability when they themselves have unstable sources of income? I've only been around for a little more than 3 decades, but I've seen many markets and businesses be transformed. Vastly fewer numbers of travel agents, many retail establishments, tv channels, secretaries, hotel front desk, self check out are needed. Not to mention the effects of a drastic drop in birthrates. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-market.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-...

dhhdhdsbdb 7y ago
Otoh, we have far more marketers, professional writers, video editors, programmers, and people who make their own profits via YouTube etc. And a drastic drop in birth rate should mean fewer people so favor labor.
- seisvelas 7y ago
  Declining birth rate would also reduce demand for labor, not just supply, no? Assuming that the relationship between population and demand for labor is linear (probably isn't, I don't know economics).
  - curryst 7y ago
    I think it's a delayed effect. As the populace ages, people who are retired (from when birthrates were higher) will make up a larger percentage of the total population. There's some existing info on this out there, but most of what I have seen focuses on how this will impact Social Security in the US.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Birth rates in the US mean nothing if the birth rates elsewhere are high -- immigrants, legal or otherwise, will make up the difference.
mjevans 7y ago
That's just a reason why all of the benefits need to be government (and taxes on corporations to pay for them) backed things that are retained across jobs.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  but, isn't that like, socialism? /s
- eikenberry 7y ago
  They don't need to be government backed, just not tied to an employer/job. Much like current retirement plans are not tied to a specific company.
  - brewdad 7y ago
    401k is government backed. The name itself refers to the law that brought them into existence. Just as Roth IRAs are named for the Senator who proposed them. Without the backing of the government, your retirement plan would solely consist of what you save and you'd be taxed on it all along the way.
    - kyleperik 7y ago
      I'm not sure that's what was meant by government backed. The government doesn't pay for your retirement fund, a Roth IRA just doesn't charge tax on withdrawals.
      - mjevans 7y ago
        My intent was the entire benefits provisioning package outsourced to the government. This way irrespective of if heath coverage (it's not really insurance, which is a separate debate), paid time off of all kinds, and all other pre-tax line items are an entirely separate income stream and go over to the government managed pool of resources. The compensation rate for all such items might thus become far more standardized, and all of the bureaucratic conformance for such items would be there as well. This would be an exceedingly small business friendly move as suddenly a lot of the headaches of employing someone would just be paid for with a simple 'tax'. It would also be very worker friendly as all of those things and seniority/etc would similarly be paid for with that 'tax'. This does assume that there's a uniform allocation of resources per employee (I know there isn't today), or that there's a standard appreciation track for employees (there isn't today)... or that there might be multiple standard ranks of benefits (which would need to be more clearly advertised in job descriptions)... However everything really would be easier for everyone if we actually had this system; the only entities that would benefit from the status quo in a meaningful way are large corporations with enough employees to justify full time HR and legal staff.
Ancalagon 7y ago
I would say sure, if it werent for the fact that a lot of major corporations are currently having some of their most profitable years ever. And if you consider companies like Apple that are sitting on literal mountains of cash, this argument breaks down.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  I heard Apple is issueing bonds, since interest rates are low. Can't fathom why.
  - Ancalagon 7y ago
    It might be an accounting deal to avoid paying higher taxes?
  - wj 7y ago
    They can borrow money at a few percent interest rather than bring their profits from overseas back to the US and pay the corporate tax rate on it.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The link in my comment clearly shows that most of the profits are going to a small number of corporations. This is even more evidence that companies are more unstable (compared to period between WW2 and now). From the article: >In 2015, for example, the top 200 companies by earnings accounted for all of the profits in the stock market, according to calculations by Kathleen Kahle, a professor of finance at the University of Arizona, and Professor Stulz. In aggregate, the remaining 3,281 publicly listed companies lost money. The employees of those 200 companies are in a good spot, but not the remaining 3,281. The consolidation due to vertical integration, automation, outsourcing are all resulting in reduced demand for labor, hence the lagging wages and instability.

magicnubs 7y ago

> companies actually did take care of employees Was this primarily due to employees having more leverage and demanding it (because union rights were a lot stronger)?

romaaeterna 7y ago
Unions were far stronger yes. And so were communities. The legal changes are minor, compared to the changes from a high-trust society to whatever we are now.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  Capital doesn't run things around here, managers do. Think about that.
taurath 7y ago
I'd say its primarily because the original purpose of a corporation wasn't shareholder value at the expense of all other things, like benefiting the community, employee wellbeing. It was supposed to be the responsibility of the employer to take care of loyal employees. The 80s and the age of corporate raiders and activist investors changed that.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Boomers and GenX stayed for 30 years when they had pensions, Uh, GenX was being born as private pensions were being phased out; GenX was 401K at best from day one for the most part, outside of public sector.

Ensorceled 7y ago
The oldest Gen X is almost 60 now, many entered the workforce when there were still defined benefit plans. But you're essentially right, most missed the boat.
- bproven 7y ago
  Not quite that old, but early to mid-50s - Pretty sure GenX is 1965 - 1980. I'm on the tail end of that and yeah no pensions... Baby boomers got all the good stuff :)
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    The range is all over the place. Boomers range from 1960 to 1964 depending on the person doing the definition.