5 ms·

You act as if employment is a right. It's not. As I always say, if you don't like the rules, build your own company. Edit: 'The ability to employ people is a p

by nhangen 13y ago

You act as if employment is a right. It's not. As I always say, if you don't like the rules, build your own company. Edit: 'The ability to employ people is a privilege.' I don't believe that, but as an exercise, remove that 'privilege' and tell me how many people would be able to survive long enough to have a hobby?

mhurron 13y ago
>You act as if employment is a right No, he acts like companies can not be expected to even work in their own best interests. And he's right.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
As a business owner, you would employ workers at the lowest wage possible for as many hours as possible. This is why labor laws exist.
- nhangen 13y ago
  I never said anything about that. I believe in rewarding good value, and I often fight for employee raises more than most of my colleagues.
- montecarl 13y ago
  Your competitor might find it advantageous to compete with you on employee wages and poach your good employees leaving you unable to compete. Supply and demand works for salaries as much as it does for physical goods.
  - damncabbage 13y ago
    And what about the poor bastards who are judged to be "average" employees by whatever metric?
  - pyre 13y ago
    Which is what history proves happens all of the time, and is the reason that we don't have any labour laws, right?
  - willholloway 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
- nhangen 13y ago
  A business owner that engages in that practice is not going to keep his/her employees long.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Like Walmart?
ahoyhere 13y ago
The notion of a job/employment is a new one for the vast majority of the world's population, Americans included. Most people were peasants/subsistence farmers, or small time commercial farmers, or tradespeople (carpenter, blacksmith, furrier, etc.) who operated more like freelancers today than anything else. More recently, pre-WWI, many people were domestic servants, which is employment of course but not the same as working for a company today. Merchants are relatively new to human history. The legal construct of a company is much much newer than merchants. The company-employment boom is clearly ending. When you look at human history -- even limited to "civilized" history -- it's pretty clear that mass employment was the exception, not the rule, and now it's going away.
- NTDF9 13y ago
  This is a very interesting perspective. I never thought of it that way. One might add the fact that pre-WW1, most women were not a part of the workforce/merchant class/trader class(sad but true). So yes, employment is a relatively new thing.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Looking at BLS participation rate data (which, unfortunately, only goes back to 1948), I have to agree with you: http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2013_all_period_M08_data.gif http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_... http://archive.is/Cdwzp http://archive.is/Cdwzp We have boomers exiting the workforce while unskilled/less-skilled workers are unable to find a job, and discouraged, they exit the workforce. This is compounded by rapid technological advancements that are slowly eating their way up the skills ladder ("software eating the world"). I know your comment has a much longer time scale in mind, and my data is of a much smaller and recent time period, but I believe the argument still stands: Mass employment is ending. I don't know what the solution is, but we need to find one.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Uuuh... actually... there were merchant and wage-worker classes all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia's very first civilizations. What's new is to have almost all of society basically split into merchants, wage-workers, and holders of political office.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
You act as if employment is a right. It's not. And we can say in return: you act as if employing someone is a right; it's not. Employment is a contract. It lays obligations like "come to work, follow orders, and don't steal your boss's secrets" on the employee, just as it sets obligations like "pay wages and don't overwork people" on employers. Those obligations, on both sides, are enforceable via the legal system, which is a service provided by the State under such conditions as the State wants to provide it. If you want to operate without obeying reasonable labor laws, why shouldn't your employees operate without obeying rules against industrial espionage?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by nhangen 13y ago

mhurron 13y ago

>You act as if employment is a right No, he acts like companies can not be expected to even work in their own best interests. And he's right.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

As a business owner, you would employ workers at the lowest wage possible for as many hours as possible. This is why labor laws exist.

nhangen 13y ago
I never said anything about that. I believe in rewarding good value, and I often fight for employee raises more than most of my colleagues.
montecarl 13y ago
Your competitor might find it advantageous to compete with you on employee wages and poach your good employees leaving you unable to compete. Supply and demand works for salaries as much as it does for physical goods.
- damncabbage 13y ago
  And what about the poor bastards who are judged to be "average" employees by whatever metric?
- pyre 13y ago
  Which is what history proves happens all of the time, and is the reason that we don't have any labour laws, right?
- willholloway 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
nhangen 13y ago
A business owner that engages in that practice is not going to keep his/her employees long.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Like Walmart?

ahoyhere 13y ago

The notion of a job/employment is a new one for the vast majority of the world's population, Americans included. Most people were peasants/subsistence farmers, or small time commercial farmers, or tradespeople (carpenter, blacksmith, furrier, etc.) who operated more like freelancers today than anything else. More recently, pre-WWI, many people were domestic servants, which is employment of course but not the same as working for a company today. Merchants are relatively new to human history. The legal construct of a company is much much newer than merchants. The company-employment boom is clearly ending. When you look at human history -- even limited to "civilized" history -- it's pretty clear that mass employment was the exception, not the rule, and now it's going away.

NTDF9 13y ago
This is a very interesting perspective. I never thought of it that way. One might add the fact that pre-WW1, most women were not a part of the workforce/merchant class/trader class(sad but true). So yes, employment is a relatively new thing.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Looking at BLS participation rate data (which, unfortunately, only goes back to 1948), I have to agree with you: http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2013_all_period_M08_data.gif http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_... http://archive.is/Cdwzp http://archive.is/Cdwzp We have boomers exiting the workforce while unskilled/less-skilled workers are unable to find a job, and discouraged, they exit the workforce. This is compounded by rapid technological advancements that are slowly eating their way up the skills ladder ("software eating the world"). I know your comment has a much longer time scale in mind, and my data is of a much smaller and recent time period, but I believe the argument still stands: Mass employment is ending. I don't know what the solution is, but we need to find one.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Uuuh... actually... there were merchant and wage-worker classes all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia's very first civilizations. What's new is to have almost all of society basically split into merchants, wage-workers, and holders of political office.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

You act as if employment is a right. It's not. And we can say in return: you act as if employing someone is a right; it's not. Employment is a contract. It lays obligations like "come to work, follow orders, and don't steal your boss's secrets" on the employee, just as it sets obligations like "pay wages and don't overwork people" on employers. Those obligations, on both sides, are enforceable via the legal system, which is a service provided by the State under such conditions as the State wants to provide it. If you want to operate without obeying reasonable labor laws, why shouldn't your employees operate without obeying rules against industrial espionage?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]