4 ms·

> You are putting a lot of hypotheticals here. I suspect you want me to answer the question of what someone should do if they have literally no alternative apar

> You are putting a lot of hypotheticals here. I suspect you want me to answer the question of what someone should do if they have literally no alternative apart from striking for whatever reason. I'm not giving you hypotheticals. I've given you a concrete example of someone who is striking, and I believe it is in his best interests to do so. He does not have "literally no alternatives", but they all seem worse in some way. > But I can say with confidence that if his best plan is to work less and dedicate his energies to fighting his employer then his future is bleak regardless of the outcome It's not his preferred plan. He'd prefer not to have his pay slashed and would prefer to dedicate his energies to doing his best work. I can say with some degree of confidence that the outcome of the strike will be that the employer will offer better terms and a compromise will be reached. That is how most strikes end. Despite your early protestations, I think you're ideologically opposed to the idea of striking. However, most democracies have come to the conclusion that strikes are a useful tool that protects workers' rights and helps offset the asymmetric power balance between employer and employee. No one wants to strike; ideally just the potential for striking deters employers from cutting workers' salaries to the bone in the pursuit of profit.

roenxi 4y ago
It isn't a concrete example, there are too many relevant details to put in a HN thread. We can't really discuss his exact circumstances, he isn't on hand to ask what alternatives he & his striking workmates actually considered. And you're asking me to work with the premise that there is literally no alternatives when that is really the fact that is up for debate. If the only option is to destroy wealth then sure, do that. But he isn't going to get wealthy that way. > It's not his preferred plan. He'd prefer not to have his pay slashed and would prefer to dedicate his energies to doing his best work. Those are 2 bad plans. I suppose I'll ask anyway - how many alternatives has he seriously considered? Has he seriously considered any alternatives that might get him a good outcome? What were they? There have to at least be some that he considered before giving up and saying there is no alternative. This presents striking as Plan B. > Despite your early protestations, I think you're ideologically opposed to the idea of striking. Yeah. I'm saying that if the best decision is to strike then he's screwed up some decision in the past really badly, that is fundamentally an ideological take. Having a coherent ideology is an important tool for wealth creation. Most of the wealth creation from the industrial revolution onwards has been due to ideological innovations. Capitalism is an ideological position; it just happens to work a lot better than people who think striking is a practical way of securing a lifestyle. If he is using striking as a tool, he's going to stay poor.

roenxi 4y ago

It isn't a concrete example, there are too many relevant details to put in a HN thread. We can't really discuss his exact circumstances, he isn't on hand to ask what alternatives he & his striking workmates actually considered. And you're asking me to work with the premise that there is literally no alternatives when that is really the fact that is up for debate. If the only option is to destroy wealth then sure, do that. But he isn't going to get wealthy that way. > It's not his preferred plan. He'd prefer not to have his pay slashed and would prefer to dedicate his energies to doing his best work. Those are 2 bad plans. I suppose I'll ask anyway - how many alternatives has he seriously considered? Has he seriously considered any alternatives that might get him a good outcome? What were they? There have to at least be some that he considered before giving up and saying there is no alternative. This presents striking as Plan B. > Despite your early protestations, I think you're ideologically opposed to the idea of striking. Yeah. I'm saying that if the best decision is to strike then he's screwed up some decision in the past really badly, that is fundamentally an ideological take. Having a coherent ideology is an important tool for wealth creation. Most of the wealth creation from the industrial revolution onwards has been due to ideological innovations. Capitalism is an ideological position; it just happens to work a lot better than people who think striking is a practical way of securing a lifestyle. If he is using striking as a tool, he's going to stay poor.