4 ms·

This is complete fantasy. What's objectively best for the company is to get the most value from their labor for the least cost. This is not in the interest of

This is complete fantasy. What's objectively best for the company is to get the most value from their labor for the least cost. This is not in the interest of the workers.

porbelm 4y ago
Well yes, and in the U.S. that "least cost" is slave labor. It doesn't have to be, though. Do you think the EU/western Europe has lower worker efficiency even though we have a five-day week, four or five weeks vacation time a year, and eight hour work days with relatively generous overtime compensation? And businesses pay more taxes on their workforce, the state spends lots on healthcare, etc etc. Many countries are even talking about doing four-day weeks or six-hour days. It is in the interest of the company to have happy, productive workers that stay because they enjoy their life and work. That is best done with generous compensation and whatever allows for a good work/life balance.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  > Do you think the EU/western Europe has lower worker efficiency even though we have a five-day week, four or five weeks vacation time a year, and eight hour work days with relatively generous overtime compensation? Yes. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.22.1.25 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.22.1.25
- scaramanga 4y ago
  Beware the people conflating efficiency with "productivity" productivity is just earnings divided by payroll. If you sack half of your workers, your productivity will approximately double. But not for long.
scaramanga 4y ago
That is only good for the company if your notion of company ignores the needs of one faction of people (those who generate value) and prioritises the needs of another group (those who extract value). If we are going to have malicious and incompetent people in the society, I am of the opinion that they should sink to the bottom, not rise to the top. You, apparently, believe the opposite. Of course, you are quite free to continue with that preference.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  > You, apparently, believe the opposite. I'm not sure how exactly you read that given the context, but I agree with you.

This is complete fantasy. What's objectively best for the company is to get the most value from their labor for the least cost. This is not in the interest of the workers.

porbelm 4y ago

Well yes, and in the U.S. that "least cost" is slave labor. It doesn't have to be, though. Do you think the EU/western Europe has lower worker efficiency even though we have a five-day week, four or five weeks vacation time a year, and eight hour work days with relatively generous overtime compensation? And businesses pay more taxes on their workforce, the state spends lots on healthcare, etc etc. Many countries are even talking about doing four-day weeks or six-hour days. It is in the interest of the company to have happy, productive workers that stay because they enjoy their life and work. That is best done with generous compensation and whatever allows for a good work/life balance.

alex_sf 4y ago
> Do you think the EU/western Europe has lower worker efficiency even though we have a five-day week, four or five weeks vacation time a year, and eight hour work days with relatively generous overtime compensation? Yes. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.22.1.25 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.22.1.25
scaramanga 4y ago
Beware the people conflating efficiency with "productivity" productivity is just earnings divided by payroll. If you sack half of your workers, your productivity will approximately double. But not for long.

scaramanga 4y ago

That is only good for the company if your notion of company ignores the needs of one faction of people (those who generate value) and prioritises the needs of another group (those who extract value). If we are going to have malicious and incompetent people in the society, I am of the opinion that they should sink to the bottom, not rise to the top. You, apparently, believe the opposite. Of course, you are quite free to continue with that preference.

alex_sf 4y ago
> You, apparently, believe the opposite. I'm not sure how exactly you read that given the context, but I agree with you.