4 ms·

That's an incredibly broad generalization to draw over several thousand years of human history. I'd argue since at least ancient Rome the predominant model for

That's an incredibly broad generalization to draw over several thousand years of human history. I'd argue since at least ancient Rome the predominant model for societies has been the clientela patronage model [1] and its feudal derivatives. The employment model is a formalization of that relationship that sets up basic "serf rights" that were otherwise open to horrendous abuse before. The contractors of yore were mercenaries - they were usually paid more than the soldiers in standing armies (sound familiar?). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome

jedberg 5y ago
Like I said, there are examples that predate the Industrial Revolution, but the idea of an average worker having pay stability is pretty new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary
- topkai22 5y ago
  I agree that pay stability is new, but that doesn’t mean they were in a contracting relationship. For most of recorded history, most people were engaged in some form of subsistence food production. Many were enslaved. Generally speaking, neither of those economic models are that close to “contracting.” Tenant farming gets closer (although not really). Itinerant labor probably the closest, but I don’t think they made up much of the population in societies I know about. Skilled craftsman could also count, although they look more like a generalized small business than a “contractor” as at least I think about it.
barry-cotter 5y ago
This doesn’t really aid your argument. The client patron relationship is a lot more like a master servant relationship than an employer employee one. You are not equals in any sense in a client patron relationship. And it’s a personal relationship, not a contractual one.
- novok 5y ago
  If you read employment law, they exactly say master and servant actually: https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/master-and-servant-the-roots-of-american-employment-law/ https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/master-and-ser...

jedberg 5y ago

Like I said, there are examples that predate the Industrial Revolution, but the idea of an average worker having pay stability is pretty new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary

topkai22 5y ago
I agree that pay stability is new, but that doesn’t mean they were in a contracting relationship. For most of recorded history, most people were engaged in some form of subsistence food production. Many were enslaved. Generally speaking, neither of those economic models are that close to “contracting.” Tenant farming gets closer (although not really). Itinerant labor probably the closest, but I don’t think they made up much of the population in societies I know about. Skilled craftsman could also count, although they look more like a generalized small business than a “contractor” as at least I think about it.

barry-cotter 5y ago

This doesn’t really aid your argument. The client patron relationship is a lot more like a master servant relationship than an employer employee one. You are not equals in any sense in a client patron relationship. And it’s a personal relationship, not a contractual one.

novok 5y ago
If you read employment law, they exactly say master and servant actually: https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/master-and-servant-the-roots-of-american-employment-law/ https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/master-and-ser...