4 ms·

You’re technically right. But it’s disappointing that that’s the normal state of affairs.

by dakiol 1y ago

nradov 1y ago
Why?
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  Why do people with families to feed and 20-30 year mortgages desire more than a week of job stability when it can take months to find work again? Is this a serious question?
  - nradov 1y ago
    It's a serious question. I have a family to feed and a 30-year mortgage, and I would much rather live in a place where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job. A dynamic economy benefits everyone.
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      > "A dynamic economy benefits everyone" Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others. It benefits people who are highly skilled, clever, healthy, wealthy, young, with market-desirable skills in a market-desirable area, with no external family or life problems or responsibilities, and those who own and run companies, more than 95% of everyone else. > "where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job." I don't see that follows; jobs can have probationary periods where employers can reject new hires quickly, while still having notice periods.
      - nradov 1y ago
        There's no need for either designated probationary periods or notice periods. Social safety nets are a good thing in general but should be provided directly by governments rather than by private employers obeying government mandates. Imposing any requirements on employers beyond basic health and safety rules slows down economic growth and hurts everyone in the long run.
        ml-anon 1y ago
        lol
        yladiz 1y ago
        Define health and safety rules, and then define the basic ones that are a subset of the entire ruleset.
        jodrellblank 1y ago
        Risk of having your life upended by someone else's whim causes stress, chronic stress on a population has a long term health cost. Imposing requirements on employers reduces stress and helps everyone in the long run.
  - sneak 1y ago
    Yes, absolutely. If you have a family and a mortgage without first having enough savings to support those things through anomalies, you’re acting irresponsibly. Nobody should be expecting their employer (or any second party, really) to be their income stream’s low pass filter. That’s what your savings account is for. If you can’t support your family and mortgage through 6-9 months (minimum) out of savings, you shouldn’t have them because you can’t afford them. (Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it. I would venture a guess that most 30 year mortgages end by being paid off at sale in less than 30 years. A 30 year mortgage doesn’t mean 30 years of mandatory payments, you can sell the place and move and pay off the mortgage at any time.)
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      The best part about living under the Sword of Damocles is that when it falls on someone else I can lecture them about how they deserved it. I can't imagine it would ever fall on me, because I don't deserve it. > "you’re acting irresponsibly" If things were arranged so that you didn't need the savings to cover the constant worry of being fired, then not having the savings wouldn't be acting irresponsibly. Americans need health insurance, not having health insurance is irresponsible. In countries where healthcare is free at the point of use, not having health insurance is not irresponsible. You're arguing a logical tautology. > "(Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it." As an example illustration that people do not live life in 1-day or 1-week increments, but in decades. People want to - and do - put down roots and settle in for a long time.
      - nradov 1y ago
        So what. People want a lot of things. Employers aren't responsible for providing those things.
        const_cast 1y ago
        Okay. Why not? This isn't an argument. You aren't making any argument. Because, to me, this sounds good. Okay, so let's do it. Seems pretty simple and straightforward. I mean, I want a 401K. Employers should provide that. Okay, then let's do that. They... aren't responsible? Don't we make the laws? Let's just force them to be responsible. Problem solved. I'm happy, you're happy, everyone is happy. Do you, like, aspire to be exploited? Why are you advocating against your own best interests? Is this selflessness, or some strange form of self-harm I haven't been exposed to?
- oezi 1y ago
  Because in Europe we believe that with ownership also come responsibilities. For instance to care about your employees, prevent destruction of nature, etc. Things you can wrap in insane complex laws or just manage through a social contract between the tarif partners (employees and employers). We all lose if this contract is broken.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Don't presume to speak for "Europe". It's a big place with a wide diversity of viewpoints. We all lose when employers have a paternalistic relationship with employees. It's better for everyone to keep things strictly transactional.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      It's not an equal transaction - it's like a child negotiating with an evil sorcerer. The reality is that you have little to no power or leverage in labor relationships. You may think you do, because it is very valuable to the other party for you to believe as such. But you do not. Things being purely transaction can work when it's a fair transaction. When your life is on the line and the other party is risk fuck-all, it's not a fair transaction. When you have a few sheckles at your disposal and the other party has billions, it's not a fair transaction. When you don't know shit about their decision making but the other party knows as much as possible as they can about you, it's not a fair transaction.
      - nradov 1y ago
        The reality is that if you equate a typical employer with an "evil sorcerer" you're so disconnected from reality that you have nothing of value to contribute here.
        const_cast 1y ago
        That's not what I did, please read more carefully. The power dynamic and information dynamic is that of a child compared to a sorcerer. The sorcerer knows all, and does not need the child. They can turn the child into a frog, and the child cannot perform any magic in retaliation. You must realize your leverage is close to non-existant in negotiations. You are, frankly, irrelevant, and of the negotiations you can attempt you must do so with just a tiny fraction of the information required. You hold none of the cards. I'm not even sure how this could be controversial - its just plainly true. Denying reality is one thing, aspiring to something that harms you is another.

You’re technically right. But it’s disappointing that that’s the normal state of affairs.

by dakiol 1y ago

You’re technically right. But it’s disappointing that that’s the normal state of affairs.

nradov 1y ago

Why?

jodrellblank 1y ago
Why do people with families to feed and 20-30 year mortgages desire more than a week of job stability when it can take months to find work again? Is this a serious question?
- nradov 1y ago
  It's a serious question. I have a family to feed and a 30-year mortgage, and I would much rather live in a place where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job. A dynamic economy benefits everyone.
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    > "A dynamic economy benefits everyone" Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others. It benefits people who are highly skilled, clever, healthy, wealthy, young, with market-desirable skills in a market-desirable area, with no external family or life problems or responsibilities, and those who own and run companies, more than 95% of everyone else. > "where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job." I don't see that follows; jobs can have probationary periods where employers can reject new hires quickly, while still having notice periods.
    - nradov 1y ago
      There's no need for either designated probationary periods or notice periods. Social safety nets are a good thing in general but should be provided directly by governments rather than by private employers obeying government mandates. Imposing any requirements on employers beyond basic health and safety rules slows down economic growth and hurts everyone in the long run.
      - ml-anon 1y ago
        lol
      - yladiz 1y ago
        Define health and safety rules, and then define the basic ones that are a subset of the entire ruleset.
      - jodrellblank 1y ago
        Risk of having your life upended by someone else's whim causes stress, chronic stress on a population has a long term health cost. Imposing requirements on employers reduces stress and helps everyone in the long run.
- sneak 1y ago
  Yes, absolutely. If you have a family and a mortgage without first having enough savings to support those things through anomalies, you’re acting irresponsibly. Nobody should be expecting their employer (or any second party, really) to be their income stream’s low pass filter. That’s what your savings account is for. If you can’t support your family and mortgage through 6-9 months (minimum) out of savings, you shouldn’t have them because you can’t afford them. (Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it. I would venture a guess that most 30 year mortgages end by being paid off at sale in less than 30 years. A 30 year mortgage doesn’t mean 30 years of mandatory payments, you can sell the place and move and pay off the mortgage at any time.)
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    The best part about living under the Sword of Damocles is that when it falls on someone else I can lecture them about how they deserved it. I can't imagine it would ever fall on me, because I don't deserve it. > "you’re acting irresponsibly" If things were arranged so that you didn't need the savings to cover the constant worry of being fired, then not having the savings wouldn't be acting irresponsibly. Americans need health insurance, not having health insurance is irresponsible. In countries where healthcare is free at the point of use, not having health insurance is not irresponsible. You're arguing a logical tautology. > "(Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it." As an example illustration that people do not live life in 1-day or 1-week increments, but in decades. People want to - and do - put down roots and settle in for a long time.
    - nradov 1y ago
      So what. People want a lot of things. Employers aren't responsible for providing those things.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Okay. Why not? This isn't an argument. You aren't making any argument. Because, to me, this sounds good. Okay, so let's do it. Seems pretty simple and straightforward. I mean, I want a 401K. Employers should provide that. Okay, then let's do that. They... aren't responsible? Don't we make the laws? Let's just force them to be responsible. Problem solved. I'm happy, you're happy, everyone is happy. Do you, like, aspire to be exploited? Why are you advocating against your own best interests? Is this selflessness, or some strange form of self-harm I haven't been exposed to?
oezi 1y ago
Because in Europe we believe that with ownership also come responsibilities. For instance to care about your employees, prevent destruction of nature, etc. Things you can wrap in insane complex laws or just manage through a social contract between the tarif partners (employees and employers). We all lose if this contract is broken.
- nradov 1y ago
  Don't presume to speak for "Europe". It's a big place with a wide diversity of viewpoints. We all lose when employers have a paternalistic relationship with employees. It's better for everyone to keep things strictly transactional.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    It's not an equal transaction - it's like a child negotiating with an evil sorcerer. The reality is that you have little to no power or leverage in labor relationships. You may think you do, because it is very valuable to the other party for you to believe as such. But you do not. Things being purely transaction can work when it's a fair transaction. When your life is on the line and the other party is risk fuck-all, it's not a fair transaction. When you have a few sheckles at your disposal and the other party has billions, it's not a fair transaction. When you don't know shit about their decision making but the other party knows as much as possible as they can about you, it's not a fair transaction.
    - nradov 1y ago
      The reality is that if you equate a typical employer with an "evil sorcerer" you're so disconnected from reality that you have nothing of value to contribute here.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        That's not what I did, please read more carefully. The power dynamic and information dynamic is that of a child compared to a sorcerer. The sorcerer knows all, and does not need the child. They can turn the child into a frog, and the child cannot perform any magic in retaliation. You must realize your leverage is close to non-existant in negotiations. You are, frankly, irrelevant, and of the negotiations you can attempt you must do so with just a tiny fraction of the information required. You hold none of the cards. I'm not even sure how this could be controversial - its just plainly true. Denying reality is one thing, aspiring to something that harms you is another.