7 ms·

It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. As people poi

It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. As people pointed out though, it's a different story once health care is part of the equation.

Tichy 15y ago
That's so weird. As if there was some kind of conspiracy between health care providers and employers. I mean you probably take it for granted that health care is tied to a job, but that really isn't the case at all. Where I live (Germany) it is organized in a completely different way. If you lose your job, social insurance will keep paying your health insurance. It's ironic because "your way" actually seems to be taking freedom away from you, yet the US seems to consider a model like the German one to be the ultimate slavery (socialism).
- Natsu 15y ago
  They've tried to change the health insurance problem. I'm not sure how much Obamacare will do in that regard, as a practical matter, but we'll eventually find out one way or another, assuming it's not repealed or struck down first.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Yeah, the thing is the USA is the flip side of the USSR. One was the definition of socialism, the other capitalism. Here in Europe we consider both systems as tools to use, rather than rules for running a state. Part of me wonders if the US obsession with uber capitalism is some sort of historic anti Europe thing, or a way that they remain different and separate. Its US identity. Having booted the Europeans and gained independence, the last thing they want to do is embrace European ideals.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I don't really understand the logic, because it seems to me that as long as they pay taxes in the US, they are just as "socialist" as, say, Germany with their health insurance. What is the difference if you build roads for the common good or buy health insurance for the common good. Also I don't understand how capitalism makes health care tied to employment. In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? What do they care if you are employed or not - except perhaps for some statistics like "employed people are less/more healthy on average", which could be factored into the rates.
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? There are, in actual fact, insurance companies in the US that will do this. Some make it a business to cater to self-employed folks who don't have company insurance. It's been a while since I thought about this, but (IIRC) the 'private companies pay for insurance' deal got started in World War II, as a perk. Companies could not compete for scarce labor (salary freeze) so they offered basic health insurance to attract workers. From there it just grew. So why do so many of us accept it, when there are free-market alternatives? I think it's the convenience. Take my dental plan at work. For about $10 a month I'm covered for all routine stuff at the dentist. Extraordinary work will cost me a bit off the top, but not _that_ much, for the care I'm getting. Which is pretty much the plan I'd get if I eschewed the work plan and bought one on my own. The convenience is that work has a team of guys who deal with the insurance companies, getting deals, selecting plans, negotiating rates, basically dealing with a lot of hassle so I don't have to. Now, I could get a better rate on my own, and I probably _should_ if I were really worried about being laid-off but .. it's just easier this way. A trade-off. For a lot of us, this is okay: the plans our employers offer are pretty good. For some people, who have sucky employers and rotten plans ... it's sub-optimal.
      - campnic 15y ago
        I think it's the convenience. I think its because employers for large companies get the only reasonable health care rates in the country. If you work for a large employer and you have a way as an individual to get comparative coverage for the same cost ignoring any pre-existing conditions, I'd love to hear it.
        Tichy 15y ago
        Hm, let me guess: does it work because the employer pools all of his employees, and the insurance can account for that? Like one employee gets seriously ill, but 10 stay healthy, so the costs average out? I think private insurance here in Germany just forms arbitrary pools of people, but the don't just insure anybody. If you have some risk indicators, they won't insure you. Maybe the employers in the US simply have a good bargaining chip, they can say "if you insure our one risky employee, you'll also get to insure our other ten non-risky employees".
  - eli_gottlieb 15y ago
    White America developed out of freehold farming, whereas Europe developed out of a feudal peasant-farming class that was later enclosed off its land and forced into wage-labor. Now, moves similar to enclosure were pulled in the US, but the culture developed around "self-reliance" and what you might call Yeoman Capitalism. These people hold a strong, bizarrely strong, idea that any time you like you can quit your job and go homestead some open land, so you're Free. Minority populations tend to be significantly more left-wing for a reason. We were usually discriminated against in the public or private sphere, or even just allowed into the country as exploited labor (Asians, blacks). We have no thoughts of homesteading the Midwest meaning Freedom; we think worker ownership or unionization means Freedom.
    - Nick_C 15y ago
      Thanks for this insightful post. As an outsider, I wondered how the US associated itself so strongly with "freedom".
alan_cx 15y ago
Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. As a former employer (Im now 39 and retired), I never ever expected people to work for free. Never. That is literally slave labour to me. The health care thing, as it exists in the US, is a nasty whip by which people are beaten. It is one very good reason why the US could do with a national health care system for all. As it stands, I do understand why people are too scared to take risks. Health should never be a reason for exploitation. Sadly, what you are saying is that its fine for business to exploit human beings. I say no. I have enough self respect and confidence to walk. I will not be abused by these people. Having read that previous article about that woman who went to work in one of those huge warehouses, my view has hardened. Essentially, in the USA you have Indian business practice now. Why? Because everything is driven down by price. Ironically, the people who have to work in those places are the very people who need those prices, and so we see condition and prices decline. Seriously, aren't things supposed to get better with time? Or os that only for the few at the top? This Uber capitalism thing will end in tears. IMHO, capitalism is a tool to be used, not a way of life. As is socialism. Society needs to embrace both, and use both where appropriate. But hey, I live in the UK. Things are a bit better here. For now...
- bmj 15y ago
  Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. In some industries, maybe. I've worked in several "old school" design agencies (doing a bit of interactive work), and many designers and production folks are absolutely worked to the bone (frequent all-nighters, weekends, etc). Sure, some of them quit, but there's always somebody else to take their place. And working long hours is all "career development" until you're out of the trenches every day. Some industries just function this way (gaming, as others have pointed out), and people entering those industries seem happy to accept it.
- khyryk 15y ago
  I imagine quitting would just be a minor annoyance until they find someone who does exactly what you used to do. Not many are in the position where they would actually be considered valuable and perhaps beginning to approach irreplaceable. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in ideology, but many people are in ugly situations.
Intermernet 15y ago
"if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with." Does anybody like being exploited?
batista 15y ago
It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. No, it's not at-will employment. At will employment would be, "I want to work at Google", and snap you're working at Google. Real life employment is more like: how is the general economy? how is your specific field's economy? If you quit this job, can you last for a while while seeking a new one? Are local firms hiring or do you have to leave your town to find a job? Are your skills still relevant? Do you have a family to feed? Do you have mortgage payments? Are you 1 in 100 kind of programmer, where companies compete to hire you, or 1 in 20, where you can shop around a little? Maybe you are one of 19 in 20, ie average, and you don't get much say. Do you even have had an education, or couldn't afford one? Are you/any member of your family sick, do you absolutely need health coverage?
- gaius 15y ago
  Nevertheless, "at will" is the common term for what he describes.

Tichy 15y ago

That's so weird. As if there was some kind of conspiracy between health care providers and employers. I mean you probably take it for granted that health care is tied to a job, but that really isn't the case at all. Where I live (Germany) it is organized in a completely different way. If you lose your job, social insurance will keep paying your health insurance. It's ironic because "your way" actually seems to be taking freedom away from you, yet the US seems to consider a model like the German one to be the ultimate slavery (socialism).

Natsu 15y ago
They've tried to change the health insurance problem. I'm not sure how much Obamacare will do in that regard, as a practical matter, but we'll eventually find out one way or another, assuming it's not repealed or struck down first.
alan_cx 15y ago
Yeah, the thing is the USA is the flip side of the USSR. One was the definition of socialism, the other capitalism. Here in Europe we consider both systems as tools to use, rather than rules for running a state. Part of me wonders if the US obsession with uber capitalism is some sort of historic anti Europe thing, or a way that they remain different and separate. Its US identity. Having booted the Europeans and gained independence, the last thing they want to do is embrace European ideals.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I don't really understand the logic, because it seems to me that as long as they pay taxes in the US, they are just as "socialist" as, say, Germany with their health insurance. What is the difference if you build roads for the common good or buy health insurance for the common good. Also I don't understand how capitalism makes health care tied to employment. In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? What do they care if you are employed or not - except perhaps for some statistics like "employed people are less/more healthy on average", which could be factored into the rates.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? There are, in actual fact, insurance companies in the US that will do this. Some make it a business to cater to self-employed folks who don't have company insurance. It's been a while since I thought about this, but (IIRC) the 'private companies pay for insurance' deal got started in World War II, as a perk. Companies could not compete for scarce labor (salary freeze) so they offered basic health insurance to attract workers. From there it just grew. So why do so many of us accept it, when there are free-market alternatives? I think it's the convenience. Take my dental plan at work. For about $10 a month I'm covered for all routine stuff at the dentist. Extraordinary work will cost me a bit off the top, but not _that_ much, for the care I'm getting. Which is pretty much the plan I'd get if I eschewed the work plan and bought one on my own. The convenience is that work has a team of guys who deal with the insurance companies, getting deals, selecting plans, negotiating rates, basically dealing with a lot of hassle so I don't have to. Now, I could get a better rate on my own, and I probably _should_ if I were really worried about being laid-off but .. it's just easier this way. A trade-off. For a lot of us, this is okay: the plans our employers offer are pretty good. For some people, who have sucky employers and rotten plans ... it's sub-optimal.
    - campnic 15y ago
      I think it's the convenience. I think its because employers for large companies get the only reasonable health care rates in the country. If you work for a large employer and you have a way as an individual to get comparative coverage for the same cost ignoring any pre-existing conditions, I'd love to hear it.
      - Tichy 15y ago
        Hm, let me guess: does it work because the employer pools all of his employees, and the insurance can account for that? Like one employee gets seriously ill, but 10 stay healthy, so the costs average out? I think private insurance here in Germany just forms arbitrary pools of people, but the don't just insure anybody. If you have some risk indicators, they won't insure you. Maybe the employers in the US simply have a good bargaining chip, they can say "if you insure our one risky employee, you'll also get to insure our other ten non-risky employees".
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  White America developed out of freehold farming, whereas Europe developed out of a feudal peasant-farming class that was later enclosed off its land and forced into wage-labor. Now, moves similar to enclosure were pulled in the US, but the culture developed around "self-reliance" and what you might call Yeoman Capitalism. These people hold a strong, bizarrely strong, idea that any time you like you can quit your job and go homestead some open land, so you're Free. Minority populations tend to be significantly more left-wing for a reason. We were usually discriminated against in the public or private sphere, or even just allowed into the country as exploited labor (Asians, blacks). We have no thoughts of homesteading the Midwest meaning Freedom; we think worker ownership or unionization means Freedom.
  - Nick_C 15y ago
    Thanks for this insightful post. As an outsider, I wondered how the US associated itself so strongly with "freedom".

alan_cx 15y ago

Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. As a former employer (Im now 39 and retired), I never ever expected people to work for free. Never. That is literally slave labour to me. The health care thing, as it exists in the US, is a nasty whip by which people are beaten. It is one very good reason why the US could do with a national health care system for all. As it stands, I do understand why people are too scared to take risks. Health should never be a reason for exploitation. Sadly, what you are saying is that its fine for business to exploit human beings. I say no. I have enough self respect and confidence to walk. I will not be abused by these people. Having read that previous article about that woman who went to work in one of those huge warehouses, my view has hardened. Essentially, in the USA you have Indian business practice now. Why? Because everything is driven down by price. Ironically, the people who have to work in those places are the very people who need those prices, and so we see condition and prices decline. Seriously, aren't things supposed to get better with time? Or os that only for the few at the top? This Uber capitalism thing will end in tears. IMHO, capitalism is a tool to be used, not a way of life. As is socialism. Society needs to embrace both, and use both where appropriate. But hey, I live in the UK. Things are a bit better here. For now...

bmj 15y ago
Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. In some industries, maybe. I've worked in several "old school" design agencies (doing a bit of interactive work), and many designers and production folks are absolutely worked to the bone (frequent all-nighters, weekends, etc). Sure, some of them quit, but there's always somebody else to take their place. And working long hours is all "career development" until you're out of the trenches every day. Some industries just function this way (gaming, as others have pointed out), and people entering those industries seem happy to accept it.
khyryk 15y ago
I imagine quitting would just be a minor annoyance until they find someone who does exactly what you used to do. Not many are in the position where they would actually be considered valuable and perhaps beginning to approach irreplaceable. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in ideology, but many people are in ugly situations.

Intermernet 15y ago

"if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with." Does anybody like being exploited?

batista 15y ago

It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. No, it's not at-will employment. At will employment would be, "I want to work at Google", and snap you're working at Google. Real life employment is more like: how is the general economy? how is your specific field's economy? If you quit this job, can you last for a while while seeking a new one? Are local firms hiring or do you have to leave your town to find a job? Are your skills still relevant? Do you have a family to feed? Do you have mortgage payments? Are you 1 in 100 kind of programmer, where companies compete to hire you, or 1 in 20, where you can shop around a little? Maybe you are one of 19 in 20, ie average, and you don't get much say. Do you even have had an education, or couldn't afford one? Are you/any member of your family sick, do you absolutely need health coverage?

gaius 15y ago
Nevertheless, "at will" is the common term for what he describes.