4 ms·

If this was a conversation between equals, I think you might have a point, but the balance of power between employee and employer (especially when it’s a huge c

If this was a conversation between equals, I think you might have a point, but the balance of power between employee and employer (especially when it’s a huge corporation) lies firmly on the side of the employer. An employee has needs that sometimes cannot go untended, s/he has rent/mortgage payments, s/he may have family to take care of, loan repayments, children at non-free school, etc etc. This is normal, and the paraphernalia of living a life. They are long-term commitments. So if the employee is presented with an ultimatum like this, it really amounts to “rip up your life, or take the new (worse) offer we are giving you”. It smacks of Vader’s famous line: “I am altering the deal. Pray that I don’t alter it any further”. You may prefer living in a world where corporations can wreak havoc with employees lives without consequence (like Vader) but I don’t. Leaving the country at the end of this year and returning back to the UK. I came here for the money and the weather. The weather is now too damn hot, and I’ve made enough money to retire (in the UK at least) and look after my wife after an American hospital utterly destroyed her life, putting her into a coma after trying to “turn beds” like restaurants “turn tables”. I so much wish I’d done this 2 years ago, life would have been very different if I had.

fargle 2y ago
all of that is fine, but my point and what i was responding to is that comparing the US system to "indentured servitude" is completely the opposite of a good analogy to what it is. you prefer "guarantees". that's fine. i prefer more freedom and i don't want or trust those guarantees. nothing keeps a company from going out of business and then it doesn't matter what the law says or what they owed you - piff - you're screwed right then and there. you can also be run over by a bus tomorrow through no fault of your own in spite of any number of laws to keep that from happening. > You may prefer living in a world where corporations can wreak havoc with employees lives without consequence (like Vader) but I don’t. i don't like that either. but realize we both already do live in that world. unfortunately it is a fundamental universal fact of life that enough power and money can be, and usually will be, wielded to do bad things. since you can't fundamentally change that, most "fixes" are just trading one thing for another, or shifting costs to someone else, who is probably poorer and less powerful. every safety net is also a set of handcuffs. every benefit has a cost somewhere else. to move more toward more employment guarantees makes you more of a slave, not less. ironically, more regulation strongly favors the larger bureaucracies and bigger companies at the expense of the individuals and small companies. so now you just encouraged more economic asymmetry. i'm not telling you what you prefer or what's best for you or what to believe. just realize that everyone does not have the same viewpoint or needs at all. and it's not simply evil vs. good as portrayed in the movies. i'm sorry to hear about your wife. the quality of healthcare in this country can be highly variable, it's certainly not always bad. i've heard that UK sometimes has different issues. use your intelligence to make the wisest and best decisions you can and be as proactive as possible, that's all you can do, anywhere, anytime.
- Ukv 2y ago
  > i prefer more freedom "Accept this employment contact change or be unable to afford treatment for your illness" is often not really a choice. It's "freedom" for those with money, oppression for those without. > nothing keeps a company from going out of business and then it doesn't matter what the law says or what they owed you - piff - you're screwed right then and there. you can also be run over by a bus tomorrow through no fault of your own in spite of any number of laws to keep that from happening. You seem to refute your own point. It's true you could get ran over by a bus - so why do we still have laws to prohibit bus drivers from knowingly running you over? Because we typically want to minimize the number of lives we "screw", even if we can't reduce it to zero. Further, a company going out of business is still very much in the realm of something sufficient social safety nets can help with - lessening the blow to employees' lives while they search/train for a new job. > i don't like that either. but realize we both already do live in that world. We can and should try to improve it. There is no reason to be resigned to the idea that this is how things must always be, when this itself is a relatively recent state of affairs and already a notable improvement over, say, feudalism of the 10th century (in both freedom and quality of life). > every benefit has a cost somewhere else Humanity's progress isn't a zero-sum game - there are plenty of net positive changes we have made and can continue to make. > and it's not simply evil vs. good as portrayed in the movies. I found spacedcowboy's consideration of power dynamics a significantly more developed worldview than what you've demonstrated above.

fargle 2y ago

all of that is fine, but my point and what i was responding to is that comparing the US system to "indentured servitude" is completely the opposite of a good analogy to what it is. you prefer "guarantees". that's fine. i prefer more freedom and i don't want or trust those guarantees. nothing keeps a company from going out of business and then it doesn't matter what the law says or what they owed you - piff - you're screwed right then and there. you can also be run over by a bus tomorrow through no fault of your own in spite of any number of laws to keep that from happening. > You may prefer living in a world where corporations can wreak havoc with employees lives without consequence (like Vader) but I don’t. i don't like that either. but realize we both already do live in that world. unfortunately it is a fundamental universal fact of life that enough power and money can be, and usually will be, wielded to do bad things. since you can't fundamentally change that, most "fixes" are just trading one thing for another, or shifting costs to someone else, who is probably poorer and less powerful. every safety net is also a set of handcuffs. every benefit has a cost somewhere else. to move more toward more employment guarantees makes you more of a slave, not less. ironically, more regulation strongly favors the larger bureaucracies and bigger companies at the expense of the individuals and small companies. so now you just encouraged more economic asymmetry. i'm not telling you what you prefer or what's best for you or what to believe. just realize that everyone does not have the same viewpoint or needs at all. and it's not simply evil vs. good as portrayed in the movies. i'm sorry to hear about your wife. the quality of healthcare in this country can be highly variable, it's certainly not always bad. i've heard that UK sometimes has different issues. use your intelligence to make the wisest and best decisions you can and be as proactive as possible, that's all you can do, anywhere, anytime.

Ukv 2y ago
> i prefer more freedom "Accept this employment contact change or be unable to afford treatment for your illness" is often not really a choice. It's "freedom" for those with money, oppression for those without. > nothing keeps a company from going out of business and then it doesn't matter what the law says or what they owed you - piff - you're screwed right then and there. you can also be run over by a bus tomorrow through no fault of your own in spite of any number of laws to keep that from happening. You seem to refute your own point. It's true you could get ran over by a bus - so why do we still have laws to prohibit bus drivers from knowingly running you over? Because we typically want to minimize the number of lives we "screw", even if we can't reduce it to zero. Further, a company going out of business is still very much in the realm of something sufficient social safety nets can help with - lessening the blow to employees' lives while they search/train for a new job. > i don't like that either. but realize we both already do live in that world. We can and should try to improve it. There is no reason to be resigned to the idea that this is how things must always be, when this itself is a relatively recent state of affairs and already a notable improvement over, say, feudalism of the 10th century (in both freedom and quality of life). > every benefit has a cost somewhere else Humanity's progress isn't a zero-sum game - there are plenty of net positive changes we have made and can continue to make. > and it's not simply evil vs. good as portrayed in the movies. I found spacedcowboy's consideration of power dynamics a significantly more developed worldview than what you've demonstrated above.