3 ms·

I see this as a way to give companies an incentive to train workers. Without these kind of provisions, the risk that the employee would leave would eliminate mu

I see this as a way to give companies an incentive to train workers. Without these kind of provisions, the risk that the employee would leave would eliminate much of the incentive to invest in training. As for the criticisms of indentured servitude - which if we're going to call this that, is a very watered down version - I think they're reflexive and not thoughtful. Today we have something much more coercive than indentured servitude and that's involuntary servitude in the form of income tax law. At least with indentured servitude you choose the servitude and it expires after the ordained time. The danger of indentured servitude is that it is offered by private companies with a profit motive who would be more likely to seek to abuse the very dangerous relationship they enter into with the the counter party, to exploit that party. A government imposing an income tax has no such perverse incentives. So the rejection of indentured servitude in favor of government imposed taxes has some reasonableness behind it, but I think it's ultimately a crude and hasty substitution.

hnbad 4y ago
Funny, you'd think a low supply of qualified workers would be sufficient motivation for big companies to train workers or fund external training programs (giving them ample opportunities to advertise themselves as the obvious choice as a future employer in that career). This is how most civilised countries handle it.
fzeroracer 4y ago
Typically speaking if you're worried about employees leaving the way it's 'supposed' to work in a capitalist society is that said employer pays more, offers more benefits, or improves the work culture. The fact that you pivot immediately into an irrelevant argument against income tax has no bearing on the companies using debt as a way to force employee retention.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Yes, but competing employers can do exactly what you do, and offer applicants more pay. By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the subject employer paid for. >>The fact that you pivot immediately into an irrelevant argument against income tax has no bearing on the companies using debt as a way to force employee retention. Taxation is in fact how we solve the problem of trading liberty for security in the absence of indentured servitude. To elaborate: people need economic security, and many are willing to submit to tax obligations, or in the past, to indentured servitude, to get it. So it's entirely relevant to the question of whether this kind of training for debt arrangement is consistent with accepted social mores, no matter how much you may want to over-simplify and wrap up the discussion.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the subject employer paid for. Boo-hoo. Companies benefit from things they don't pay for all the time. Not to mention pushing their externalities (like pollution) on the rest of society. Trying to capture all the benefits of money you invest while dumping your costs/externalities on others is the definition of greed. If you had a friend like this, they wouldn't be your friend for very long. But we seem to tolerate it from our "corporate citizens".
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      >>Boo-hoo. Companies benefit from things they don't pay for all the time. Your derision is not going to change the financial logic that incentivizes companies to free ride on other companies' expenditures on training, and disincentivizes companies from making such expenditures. You have to adjust policy to how the world works, because the world will not adjust to make your policy work.
darkarmani 4y ago
> I see this as a way to give companies an incentive to train workers. They don't need this abusive system to do that. They can reimburse college credits and require a certain amount of time. The difference is that they aren't charging $20k for training that is worth $500. > Today we have something much more coercive than indentured servitude and that's involuntary servitude in the form of income tax law. At least with indentured servitude you choose the servitude and it expires after the ordained time. That's not indentured servitude. As soon as you quit making money, you owe no tax. How are you handcuffed into servitude when income is taxed and not wealth?
- ETH_start 4y ago
  >That's not indentured servitude. As soon as you quit making money, you owe no tax. In practice, the vast majority of people need to work. Whatever the income tax rate is, is the proportion of the labor that is being involuntarily done for the government.

hnbad 4y ago

Funny, you'd think a low supply of qualified workers would be sufficient motivation for big companies to train workers or fund external training programs (giving them ample opportunities to advertise themselves as the obvious choice as a future employer in that career). This is how most civilised countries handle it.

fzeroracer 4y ago

Typically speaking if you're worried about employees leaving the way it's 'supposed' to work in a capitalist society is that said employer pays more, offers more benefits, or improves the work culture. The fact that you pivot immediately into an irrelevant argument against income tax has no bearing on the companies using debt as a way to force employee retention.

ETH_start 4y ago
Yes, but competing employers can do exactly what you do, and offer applicants more pay. By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the subject employer paid for. >>The fact that you pivot immediately into an irrelevant argument against income tax has no bearing on the companies using debt as a way to force employee retention. Taxation is in fact how we solve the problem of trading liberty for security in the absence of indentured servitude. To elaborate: people need economic security, and many are willing to submit to tax obligations, or in the past, to indentured servitude, to get it. So it's entirely relevant to the question of whether this kind of training for debt arrangement is consistent with accepted social mores, no matter how much you may want to over-simplify and wrap up the discussion.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > By foregoing on training, they can free ride off of the training the subject employer paid for. Boo-hoo. Companies benefit from things they don't pay for all the time. Not to mention pushing their externalities (like pollution) on the rest of society. Trying to capture all the benefits of money you invest while dumping your costs/externalities on others is the definition of greed. If you had a friend like this, they wouldn't be your friend for very long. But we seem to tolerate it from our "corporate citizens".
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    >>Boo-hoo. Companies benefit from things they don't pay for all the time. Your derision is not going to change the financial logic that incentivizes companies to free ride on other companies' expenditures on training, and disincentivizes companies from making such expenditures. You have to adjust policy to how the world works, because the world will not adjust to make your policy work.

darkarmani 4y ago

> I see this as a way to give companies an incentive to train workers. They don't need this abusive system to do that. They can reimburse college credits and require a certain amount of time. The difference is that they aren't charging $20k for training that is worth $500. > Today we have something much more coercive than indentured servitude and that's involuntary servitude in the form of income tax law. At least with indentured servitude you choose the servitude and it expires after the ordained time. That's not indentured servitude. As soon as you quit making money, you owe no tax. How are you handcuffed into servitude when income is taxed and not wealth?

ETH_start 4y ago
>That's not indentured servitude. As soon as you quit making money, you owe no tax. In practice, the vast majority of people need to work. Whatever the income tax rate is, is the proportion of the labor that is being involuntarily done for the government.