4 ms·
This article seems to moan the destruction of a job for life culture where employees value loyalty to their employer over their own free will. I think most on
by argumentum 13y ago
This article seems to moan the destruction of a job for life culture where employees value loyalty to their employer over their own free will.
I think most on this forum celebrate that change instead, as the alternative seems like slavery.
- alan_cx 13y agoNo. Is describes the unintended consequences of it. That's not moaning or complaining, its pointing something out.
- argumentum 13y agoNo. It claims these "consequences" are in some way negative, which is what I meant by "moan". In my view, every consequence mentioned is a good thing. It's a good thing people are not loyal to their employers. It's a good thing people want to change jobs regularly.
- ijk 13y agoDo they want to or do they have to? People having the freedom to change jobs is a good thing. People being forced to change jobs against their will is a bad thing. Which factor is more prevalent today?
- argumentum 13y agoPeople being used to having a "job for life", and society approving of this is a bad thing.
- ijk 13y agoWell today we have a society that approves of "jobs for life" and no jobs for life. The US has an employment-to-population ratio of 66%. Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.
- argumentum 13y agoWhat % of that ratio is intentionally "unemployed"? I am. That statistic is similar to the commonly quoted % of US residents w/out health insurance, which ignores that a good deal of these people (again, like myself) choose to forgo this due to careful cost/benefit analysis.