6 ms·

This is the actually the result of a free market. In the end, everything gets captured by whoever has the most capital / power.

by diob 5y ago

Natsu 5y ago
I think GP is talking about the ruling, not about people leaving for another employer.
- diob 5y ago
  I know, what I said applies to courts / rulings as well. Unfortunately capitalism has been allowed to run amok so much that our entire society here is capitalist controlled. Hence why the judge has ruled so that the capitalists can have their cake (they know the peasants can't not work, as they own no capital). Every time something goes wrong in capitalism, folks like to claim socialism or communism. This is literally capitalism.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    I don't think capitalists or communists like this one. This is very much a place that would (and should) go out of business but for this government intervention. But I quoted the ruling well above, it doesn't say that they can't work for the new employer, just that the new guy has to either make one person available so the other can continue to operate or it can choose to cease hiring more staff. So they can be employed by the new employer for more money, they just have to help this place limp along until it can find people to work there (which... I can't imagine anyone wanting to after this). Presumably this isn't so much for the employer's benefit as for the public so that they don't lose access to a medical facility with the particular licenses it has. But yeah, I don't think anyone argues that this business isn't too dumb to survive after it rejected their counter-offers when they had a new job in hand, what the hell did they think was going to happen?
    - fzeroracer 5y ago
      There's a major difference between employees that hold capitalist views and employers with capitalist views. Namely, the amount of capital they hold and the way they try to leverage it. If you ask any CEO if they're a capitalist or not, they will enthusiastically agree. However, employees are considered part of their capital which is why they will gladly toss in things like non-competes, assignment of inventions and float things like suing employees for failure to give proper resignation notice. The goal here isn't to retain employees. They've even mentioned that they felt no need to attempt to retain them and this injunction solely prevents them from working at their new company. This is simply to punish them and to try and scare current workers to prevent them from doing the same. Will it work? Probably not. Though hopefully people start realizing that things like at-will employment are solely for the employers benefit, not yours because of the other legal ways they have to punish you if they so desire.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        > this injunction solely prevents them from working at their new company. Actually the headline appears to be just plain wrong, if you look at the other threads I quoted it there. It doesn't bind the employees who left at all, it asks the new employer to make one person (not necessarily even these folks) available so they can continue to operate. This place deserves to go out of business, frankly. The ruling seems aimed only at making sure that there's someone to care for people who need medical care in the short term, not so much for the benefit of this stupid employer who shot themselves in the foot.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Then the judge should have forced the company to open its purse. For example, all of the executives’ pay is diverted to the nurses they want until they hire new people. Executives get a heads you win, tails you lose situation for no reason. It was their job to make sure the place is offering sufficient compensation to stay staffed, and if they failed, they need to pay for the damages.
        5y ago
  - yucky 5y ago
    Capitalism likes free markets. This is the exact opposite of that.
    - diob 5y ago
      Capitalism is not synonymous with free market. A free market will inherently be captured by someone in the long run with capitalism. That's why things like antitrust came to be. Unfortunately, folks have grown quite naive. Saying capitalism will just work (the invisible hand) is as naive as those who think unfettered communism would work. In both scenarios, there is a tendency for powerful groups to capture the market.
      - yucky 5y ago
        >Saying capitalism will just work That's a strawman. I said the article in question, where a judge is telling people where they can and can not sell their labor, is the opposite of capitalism. Because it is.
        diob 5y ago
        How is it the opposite of capitalism? Capital is being allocated such that this happens, yes or no? What you mean to say is this doesn't follow what you think capitalism should be, aka capitalism in theory. This is capitalism in practice, like it or not.
        Natsu 5y ago
        I don't think you're even communicating because you both have very different ideas of what "capitalism" even is. GP post will probably respond to you with something like "because it's literally the government interfering with a free market outcome" which is something libertarians basically want to minimize. Market freedom isn't a yes/no binary thing, you can have more intervention or less, and one could point out that both sides here seem to prefer the outcome with less intervention in this case. But I'm not sure it matters since the headline is a flat-out lie. It looks like they will actually get to start at new jobs, at most the new company has to send one person (not necessarily any of these) to work at ThedaCare (while employed by the new company with new wages) so it can operate temporarily while the courts sort things out. And ThedaCare has to pay their lawyers, compensate the new company for any use of their staff, hire new people, deal with the PR fallout of this (and probably no one wanting to work there), etc.
  - pxmpxm 5y ago
    So a judge preventing a free market outcome (employers competing for talent and inducing medical staff to join a competitor presumably due to higher comp) is somehow a result of capitalism/free market? I don't think you'll win too many people over to the collectivist side with incoherent points like the above.
    - diob 5y ago
      You have to be willing to take the good AND the bad with capitalism. Outcomes like this are possible in both unfettered capitalism (capture of things like government / judges), and in the opposite of capitalism. We'd do better if folks wouldn't resort to just ignoring the bad sides of either.
yucky 5y ago
I'm not OP but surely you don't think US healthcare is a free market, do you? It's probably the most regulated industry we have.

This is the actually the result of a free market. In the end, everything gets captured by whoever has the most capital / power.

by diob 5y ago

This is the actually the result of a free market. In the end, everything gets captured by whoever has the most capital / power.

Natsu 5y ago

I think GP is talking about the ruling, not about people leaving for another employer.

diob 5y ago
I know, what I said applies to courts / rulings as well. Unfortunately capitalism has been allowed to run amok so much that our entire society here is capitalist controlled. Hence why the judge has ruled so that the capitalists can have their cake (they know the peasants can't not work, as they own no capital). Every time something goes wrong in capitalism, folks like to claim socialism or communism. This is literally capitalism.
- Natsu 5y ago
  I don't think capitalists or communists like this one. This is very much a place that would (and should) go out of business but for this government intervention. But I quoted the ruling well above, it doesn't say that they can't work for the new employer, just that the new guy has to either make one person available so the other can continue to operate or it can choose to cease hiring more staff. So they can be employed by the new employer for more money, they just have to help this place limp along until it can find people to work there (which... I can't imagine anyone wanting to after this). Presumably this isn't so much for the employer's benefit as for the public so that they don't lose access to a medical facility with the particular licenses it has. But yeah, I don't think anyone argues that this business isn't too dumb to survive after it rejected their counter-offers when they had a new job in hand, what the hell did they think was going to happen?
  - fzeroracer 5y ago
    There's a major difference between employees that hold capitalist views and employers with capitalist views. Namely, the amount of capital they hold and the way they try to leverage it. If you ask any CEO if they're a capitalist or not, they will enthusiastically agree. However, employees are considered part of their capital which is why they will gladly toss in things like non-competes, assignment of inventions and float things like suing employees for failure to give proper resignation notice. The goal here isn't to retain employees. They've even mentioned that they felt no need to attempt to retain them and this injunction solely prevents them from working at their new company. This is simply to punish them and to try and scare current workers to prevent them from doing the same. Will it work? Probably not. Though hopefully people start realizing that things like at-will employment are solely for the employers benefit, not yours because of the other legal ways they have to punish you if they so desire.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      > this injunction solely prevents them from working at their new company. Actually the headline appears to be just plain wrong, if you look at the other threads I quoted it there. It doesn't bind the employees who left at all, it asks the new employer to make one person (not necessarily even these folks) available so they can continue to operate. This place deserves to go out of business, frankly. The ruling seems aimed only at making sure that there's someone to care for people who need medical care in the short term, not so much for the benefit of this stupid employer who shot themselves in the foot.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Then the judge should have forced the company to open its purse. For example, all of the executives’ pay is diverted to the nurses they want until they hire new people. Executives get a heads you win, tails you lose situation for no reason. It was their job to make sure the place is offering sufficient compensation to stay staffed, and if they failed, they need to pay for the damages.
        5y ago
- yucky 5y ago
  Capitalism likes free markets. This is the exact opposite of that.
  - diob 5y ago
    Capitalism is not synonymous with free market. A free market will inherently be captured by someone in the long run with capitalism. That's why things like antitrust came to be. Unfortunately, folks have grown quite naive. Saying capitalism will just work (the invisible hand) is as naive as those who think unfettered communism would work. In both scenarios, there is a tendency for powerful groups to capture the market.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Saying capitalism will just work That's a strawman. I said the article in question, where a judge is telling people where they can and can not sell their labor, is the opposite of capitalism. Because it is.
      - diob 5y ago
        How is it the opposite of capitalism? Capital is being allocated such that this happens, yes or no? What you mean to say is this doesn't follow what you think capitalism should be, aka capitalism in theory. This is capitalism in practice, like it or not.
        Natsu 5y ago
        I don't think you're even communicating because you both have very different ideas of what "capitalism" even is. GP post will probably respond to you with something like "because it's literally the government interfering with a free market outcome" which is something libertarians basically want to minimize. Market freedom isn't a yes/no binary thing, you can have more intervention or less, and one could point out that both sides here seem to prefer the outcome with less intervention in this case. But I'm not sure it matters since the headline is a flat-out lie. It looks like they will actually get to start at new jobs, at most the new company has to send one person (not necessarily any of these) to work at ThedaCare (while employed by the new company with new wages) so it can operate temporarily while the courts sort things out. And ThedaCare has to pay their lawyers, compensate the new company for any use of their staff, hire new people, deal with the PR fallout of this (and probably no one wanting to work there), etc.
- pxmpxm 5y ago
  So a judge preventing a free market outcome (employers competing for talent and inducing medical staff to join a competitor presumably due to higher comp) is somehow a result of capitalism/free market? I don't think you'll win too many people over to the collectivist side with incoherent points like the above.
  - diob 5y ago
    You have to be willing to take the good AND the bad with capitalism. Outcomes like this are possible in both unfettered capitalism (capture of things like government / judges), and in the opposite of capitalism. We'd do better if folks wouldn't resort to just ignoring the bad sides of either.

yucky 5y ago

I'm not OP but surely you don't think US healthcare is a free market, do you? It's probably the most regulated industry we have.