5 ms·

Unless that's the only job you can actually find. Not a nice position to be, but it always happens to someone, since there are more people that jobs in many par

Unless that's the only job you can actually find. Not a nice position to be, but it always happens to someone, since there are more people that jobs in many parts of the world. Or would it be better those people "choose" not to have any job just because they find their current one is shitty? If everyone had that attitude in 19th century, we would still work 16 hours a day, without fighting for change.

mathattack 13y ago
I appreciate your thoughts. I still think it's better to spend time and energy on education and increasing corporate creation initiatives, than strong arming companies. Let's take your example further... Yes, unions (especially in the auto industry) had a lot of success. This was alongside efforts by Henry Ford to increase pay. But where did it lead? The unions kept winning, and look at where Detroit is now. The unions won victory after victory, only to wind up with companies so hollowed out that they can't afford their hard won pensions.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  I'm not talking about this specific case right now. The problem of lack of jobs is systemic, and applies to all professions, with a strong tendency to be even more pressing. Due to automation, software and other things the number of jobs, especially low skilled ones is shrinking. Yes, you can educate yourself, and anyone can/should, but in the end, one quarter of the people will be undereducated just because the bar is higher, and will still not be able to find a better job. We, as a mankind, have to seriously consider radical solutions to this problem, and not focus short term on any specific industry. Should be start decreasing working hours due to productivity increase, or just invent bullshit jobs just to keep people employed? Or to progress to Star Trek economy where people will be provided with all basic needs and work only on what they would like to? I know what I would like to happen, but I also fear what would happen. Talking only about unions, Detroit or any specific industry or place is not going to "fix" the global problem, and that is that the need for jobs is decreasing, and number of people is rising. We should tackle that problem instead. Sorry for rambling, it might only be tangentially relevant to the article and discussion, but what I see in all this cases is just this problem. Ok, I might be overgeneralizing, since I'm software engineer, but not to much.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    Two paragraphs isn't rambling. I appreciate your thoughts. I would certainly like to work 30 hours a week too. :-) And I share a concern that the middle class is getting squeezed, so that it's not a bottom 25% that struggle, it's a bottom 50-75%. That said, I still believe the solution is creating more opportunities for potential job providers, and encouraging them to compete for talent. I think this helps everyone. When there's collusion on the part of labor or capital, everyone suffers. To personalize the situation, as individuals in technology, we have the most job opportunities when there are many firms competing for our talent. (Like 1998, or now) The best thing we can do is encourage this for ourselves. Similarly, a pro-job-creator agenda on a country-wide basis will help pull up everyone.
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  "But where did it lead?" The forty hour work week? OSHA? FMLA?
  - mathattack 13y ago
    In Detroit it also crippled the auto industry, leaving companies unable to afford their pensions and health care promises. It destroyed a city, that is now is unable to honor retiree obligations. Threatening a firm at it's busiest point of the year may give you more of the pie, but it also shrinks the total size of the pie. In Detroit's case it destroyed the pie.
    - sanskritabelt 13y ago
      Maybe if the Big Three had designed cars people actually wanted to buy, history would have been different.
      - mathattack 13y ago
        The automakers, airlines and schools all have had their share of managerial blunders too. That said, can you point to a heavily unionized industry in the United States that is a world leader? (Forgive the US blinders, but I don't want to wander any further into speculation - at least any further than I've already gone.)
        909990 13y ago
        This doesn't even make any sense. Unions have nothing to do with turning companies into world leaders. That's management's responsibility. You just brushed off the parent commenter's argument that management was responsible for designing shitty cars that nobody wanted to buy because it doesn't fit your narrative.
        coffeemug 13y ago
        > Unions have nothing to do with turning companies into world leaders. No, but the fact that there are no unionized companies in the U.S. that are world leaders in their market segment wiggles its eyes suggestively at the idea that the problem might have something to do with unionization.
gasparhaspar 13y ago
In what way is the scenario the responsibility of the hiring company? You're arguing that the company should impoverish itself to save the worker from poverty. There is no magic bag of infinite money at the company.

mathattack 13y ago

I appreciate your thoughts. I still think it's better to spend time and energy on education and increasing corporate creation initiatives, than strong arming companies. Let's take your example further... Yes, unions (especially in the auto industry) had a lot of success. This was alongside efforts by Henry Ford to increase pay. But where did it lead? The unions kept winning, and look at where Detroit is now. The unions won victory after victory, only to wind up with companies so hollowed out that they can't afford their hard won pensions.

levosmetalo 13y ago
I'm not talking about this specific case right now. The problem of lack of jobs is systemic, and applies to all professions, with a strong tendency to be even more pressing. Due to automation, software and other things the number of jobs, especially low skilled ones is shrinking. Yes, you can educate yourself, and anyone can/should, but in the end, one quarter of the people will be undereducated just because the bar is higher, and will still not be able to find a better job. We, as a mankind, have to seriously consider radical solutions to this problem, and not focus short term on any specific industry. Should be start decreasing working hours due to productivity increase, or just invent bullshit jobs just to keep people employed? Or to progress to Star Trek economy where people will be provided with all basic needs and work only on what they would like to? I know what I would like to happen, but I also fear what would happen. Talking only about unions, Detroit or any specific industry or place is not going to "fix" the global problem, and that is that the need for jobs is decreasing, and number of people is rising. We should tackle that problem instead. Sorry for rambling, it might only be tangentially relevant to the article and discussion, but what I see in all this cases is just this problem. Ok, I might be overgeneralizing, since I'm software engineer, but not to much.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Two paragraphs isn't rambling. I appreciate your thoughts. I would certainly like to work 30 hours a week too. :-) And I share a concern that the middle class is getting squeezed, so that it's not a bottom 25% that struggle, it's a bottom 50-75%. That said, I still believe the solution is creating more opportunities for potential job providers, and encouraging them to compete for talent. I think this helps everyone. When there's collusion on the part of labor or capital, everyone suffers. To personalize the situation, as individuals in technology, we have the most job opportunities when there are many firms competing for our talent. (Like 1998, or now) The best thing we can do is encourage this for ourselves. Similarly, a pro-job-creator agenda on a country-wide basis will help pull up everyone.
sanskritabelt 13y ago
"But where did it lead?" The forty hour work week? OSHA? FMLA?
- mathattack 13y ago
  In Detroit it also crippled the auto industry, leaving companies unable to afford their pensions and health care promises. It destroyed a city, that is now is unable to honor retiree obligations. Threatening a firm at it's busiest point of the year may give you more of the pie, but it also shrinks the total size of the pie. In Detroit's case it destroyed the pie.
  - sanskritabelt 13y ago
    Maybe if the Big Three had designed cars people actually wanted to buy, history would have been different.
    - mathattack 13y ago
      The automakers, airlines and schools all have had their share of managerial blunders too. That said, can you point to a heavily unionized industry in the United States that is a world leader? (Forgive the US blinders, but I don't want to wander any further into speculation - at least any further than I've already gone.)
      - 909990 13y ago
        This doesn't even make any sense. Unions have nothing to do with turning companies into world leaders. That's management's responsibility. You just brushed off the parent commenter's argument that management was responsible for designing shitty cars that nobody wanted to buy because it doesn't fit your narrative.
        coffeemug 13y ago
        > Unions have nothing to do with turning companies into world leaders. No, but the fact that there are no unionized companies in the U.S. that are world leaders in their market segment wiggles its eyes suggestively at the idea that the problem might have something to do with unionization.

gasparhaspar 13y ago

In what way is the scenario the responsibility of the hiring company? You're arguing that the company should impoverish itself to save the worker from poverty. There is no magic bag of infinite money at the company.