6 ms·

>Each employer offers an additional "something" on top of all the other "somethings" offered by the other employers. And each politician does the same - whethe

>Each employer offers an additional "something" on top of all the other "somethings" offered by the other employers. And each politician does the same - whether they deliver on the promise is another matter, and they can only promise a certain amount. Further, you can get trapped at a local maximum; there isn't much variation in what companies in sector X will offer you when you restrict the pool of companies to places close to you and (even more importantly, which makes this worse than the politician's case) willing to hire you. >This is a step that does not have an analogous correspondent in the politicians' syllogism. It has a correspondence in the syllogism I was replying to. Sure, you could become self-employed, but in the same way you could also become a politician. But neither a self-employed person nor a single politician can change the situation for everyone else (mind you, this is again worse in the employee's case than the voter's case; politicians often can make huge changes that benefit all voters, one kind employer cannot do that - in fact, cost-cutting and health risk-skirting employers drive employee rights because politicians decide to regulate them). Employment seems to be even more of a sham than democracy.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> And each politician does the same - whether they deliver on the promise is another matter, and they can only promise a certain amount. Actually the offer is quite different and its not an individual offer as in the case of employment. Democracy is kind of like everyone voting on a menu item and then everyone gets the mode, in the employment model everyone gets their own choice. > It has a correspondence in the syllogism I was replying to. Sure, you could become self-employed, but in the same way you could also become a politician. Everyone gets what the apparent majority has chosen, everyone gets to choose their own employment. I'm not sure I see the parallel here. > Employment seems to be even more of a sham than democracy. Quite the contrary, in employment quid pro quo is the going rate, in democracy some people consider it correct and another group consider it to be corruption of the system.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  The fact that politicians can only get elected at the will of the majority is a problem specific to democracy, yes - but that wasn't the problem I'm talking about. Another problem common to both democracy and employment is the restricted set of options which create an illusion of free choice and consent to what follows - "I chose this politician" or "I chose this employer". Unlike choosing a politician, you need to choose an employer. This makes the stakes higher. Choosing is not enough, the employer also needs to choose you. And despite that, most people believe in a just-world fallacy in which your job record and position in life is made out of your choices, and you deserve what you get. Everyone gets what the class of capital-owners has chosen. Quid pro quo is the going rate only in the most farcical sense for a large portion of the population where the quid is your finite time and energy, and the quo is being housed and clothed. I personally have some choice in employer, but not a wide variety of choices. I certainly can't choose no employer.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Another problem common to both democracy and employment is the restricted set of options which create an illusion of free choice and consent to what follows - "I chose this politician" or "I chose this employer". This is what I take issue with. The restriction of options in democracy is a part of the design of the system and ultimately related to democracy's purpose as a decision-forcing mechanism. The losing side of the polity is deprived by design. In a market the number of options available is (subject to physical limits) a function of the number of people who choose to provide options. There is not a corresponding artificial limit on choice, rather there are as many choices as society and the planet can support. > Unlike choosing a politician, you need to choose an employer. Unlike choosing an employer, if you do not choose a politician, one will be chosen for you. > This makes the stakes higher The stakes are higher in politics because of their sanctioned ability to use force to modify the behavior of others. > Choosing is not enough, the employer also needs to choose you. This is a good thing as it ensures that the relationship is mutually satisfactory rather than a unilateral relationship like slavery. > And despite that, most people believe in a just-world fallacy in which your job record and position in life is made out of your choices, and you deserve what you get. To the extent that there is a free market in employment, that is true. to the extent that the markets are controlled by politics, that is a fallacy. > Everyone gets what the class of capital-owners has chosen. Wrong. We just established that these relationships are mutual. > Quid pro quo is the going rate only in the most farcical sense for a large portion of the population where the quid is your finite time and energy, and the quo is being housed and clothed. Its not a farce to suggest that they are being paid what their labor is worth. Also lets please be accurate, they aren't "fed and clothed" but given exchange media which they then choose to exchange for those things if they need and want to. > I certainly can't choose no employer. Quite the contrary, you most certainly can. You may not like the consequences of this choice but that's a matter of preference.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> And each politician does the same - whether they deliver on the promise is another matter, and they can only promise a certain amount. Actually the offer is quite different and its not an individual offer as in the case of employment. Democracy is kind of like everyone voting on a menu item and then everyone gets the mode, in the employment model everyone gets their own choice. > It has a correspondence in the syllogism I was replying to. Sure, you could become self-employed, but in the same way you could also become a politician. Everyone gets what the apparent majority has chosen, everyone gets to choose their own employment. I'm not sure I see the parallel here. > Employment seems to be even more of a sham than democracy. Quite the contrary, in employment quid pro quo is the going rate, in democracy some people consider it correct and another group consider it to be corruption of the system.

claudiawerner 6y ago
The fact that politicians can only get elected at the will of the majority is a problem specific to democracy, yes - but that wasn't the problem I'm talking about. Another problem common to both democracy and employment is the restricted set of options which create an illusion of free choice and consent to what follows - "I chose this politician" or "I chose this employer". Unlike choosing a politician, you need to choose an employer. This makes the stakes higher. Choosing is not enough, the employer also needs to choose you. And despite that, most people believe in a just-world fallacy in which your job record and position in life is made out of your choices, and you deserve what you get. Everyone gets what the class of capital-owners has chosen. Quid pro quo is the going rate only in the most farcical sense for a large portion of the population where the quid is your finite time and energy, and the quo is being housed and clothed. I personally have some choice in employer, but not a wide variety of choices. I certainly can't choose no employer.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Another problem common to both democracy and employment is the restricted set of options which create an illusion of free choice and consent to what follows - "I chose this politician" or "I chose this employer". This is what I take issue with. The restriction of options in democracy is a part of the design of the system and ultimately related to democracy's purpose as a decision-forcing mechanism. The losing side of the polity is deprived by design. In a market the number of options available is (subject to physical limits) a function of the number of people who choose to provide options. There is not a corresponding artificial limit on choice, rather there are as many choices as society and the planet can support. > Unlike choosing a politician, you need to choose an employer. Unlike choosing an employer, if you do not choose a politician, one will be chosen for you. > This makes the stakes higher The stakes are higher in politics because of their sanctioned ability to use force to modify the behavior of others. > Choosing is not enough, the employer also needs to choose you. This is a good thing as it ensures that the relationship is mutually satisfactory rather than a unilateral relationship like slavery. > And despite that, most people believe in a just-world fallacy in which your job record and position in life is made out of your choices, and you deserve what you get. To the extent that there is a free market in employment, that is true. to the extent that the markets are controlled by politics, that is a fallacy. > Everyone gets what the class of capital-owners has chosen. Wrong. We just established that these relationships are mutual. > Quid pro quo is the going rate only in the most farcical sense for a large portion of the population where the quid is your finite time and energy, and the quo is being housed and clothed. Its not a farce to suggest that they are being paid what their labor is worth. Also lets please be accurate, they aren't "fed and clothed" but given exchange media which they then choose to exchange for those things if they need and want to. > I certainly can't choose no employer. Quite the contrary, you most certainly can. You may not like the consequences of this choice but that's a matter of preference.