4 ms·

Wow, all that and you still promote hyper-capitalist bullshit like “they shouldn’t care.” Sounds more like you love the taste of their boot than that you’re an

Wow, all that and you still promote hyper-capitalist bullshit like “they shouldn’t care.” Sounds more like you love the taste of their boot than that you’re any sort of good economist.

credit_guy 2y ago
I'm not an economist at all. I'm just someone who is very good at their job. I'm better at what I do that 99% of the people. But in my previous job I wasn't. They did me a favor that they let me go. I was lucky and I found quickly another job where I happened to be a very good fit. The experience of being laid off and then finding a much better job is not unique to me. It's not universal, but it's not that rare either. In a world where the barriers for firing people are high, lots of people will find themselves stuck in jobs they hate. I'm sure you will disagree, you'll say that people are free to go and look for another job at all times. But that's just theory. In practice only a small minority of people do that. Most will just suffer through a bad job, because they have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc. This is just a fact.
- eschaton 2y ago
  No, I actually do agree that lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate. The solution to that isn’t to cheer on layoffs. The solution is to establish a good social safety net—especially when it comes to housing and healthcare—so people don’t have to either do a job they hate or die in the gutter. When you were laid off with lots of assistance, preserved insurance, compensation, etc. from your employer, you experienced what life is like with such a safety net. However, it was mostly provided by your employer as a perk rather than by society as a social good; the rules on what employers have to provide in the US at least are very lax. What’s maddening about opposition to providing this society-wide is that doing this would also reduce companies’ administrative overhead (HR costs would plummet without tying healthcare and retirement to employment), and would make it easier to entice good people away from their existing jobs by reducing risk. The simple fact is that the oligarchs running corporate America really want serfs, not free agents, and they’re the ones who fight doing this society-wide even though it costs them far more to do it the way it’s done now.

Wow, all that and you still promote hyper-capitalist bullshit like “they shouldn’t care.” Sounds more like you love the taste of their boot than that you’re any sort of good economist.

credit_guy 2y ago

I'm not an economist at all. I'm just someone who is very good at their job. I'm better at what I do that 99% of the people. But in my previous job I wasn't. They did me a favor that they let me go. I was lucky and I found quickly another job where I happened to be a very good fit. The experience of being laid off and then finding a much better job is not unique to me. It's not universal, but it's not that rare either. In a world where the barriers for firing people are high, lots of people will find themselves stuck in jobs they hate. I'm sure you will disagree, you'll say that people are free to go and look for another job at all times. But that's just theory. In practice only a small minority of people do that. Most will just suffer through a bad job, because they have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc. This is just a fact.

eschaton 2y ago
No, I actually do agree that lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate. The solution to that isn’t to cheer on layoffs. The solution is to establish a good social safety net—especially when it comes to housing and healthcare—so people don’t have to either do a job they hate or die in the gutter. When you were laid off with lots of assistance, preserved insurance, compensation, etc. from your employer, you experienced what life is like with such a safety net. However, it was mostly provided by your employer as a perk rather than by society as a social good; the rules on what employers have to provide in the US at least are very lax. What’s maddening about opposition to providing this society-wide is that doing this would also reduce companies’ administrative overhead (HR costs would plummet without tying healthcare and retirement to employment), and would make it easier to entice good people away from their existing jobs by reducing risk. The simple fact is that the oligarchs running corporate America really want serfs, not free agents, and they’re the ones who fight doing this society-wide even though it costs them far more to do it the way it’s done now.