3 ms·

I cannot relate at all to the people who actually lament the bursting of that old model. "Feudal" is an apt description for it, and I guess some people find th

by ef4 12y ago

I cannot relate at all to the people who actually lament the bursting of that old model. "Feudal" is an apt description for it, and I guess some people find the certainty of always being a serf comforting. But it was never a great deal for employees. Security has a cost, and an employer who says they can take care of your forever is either lying or forced to dramatically underpay you in the present to account for future risks and costs. And it's a great way to get people to go along with evil. Because who's going to stand up to their "employer for life?" Which is the point of Stross's essay. Giant collectives like governments and corporations cannot feel loyalty to you. Only individual people can do that. And you can't know which person will be holding the power ten years from now, never mind forty.

eropple 12y ago
> But it was never a great deal for employees. Security has a cost, and an employer who says they can take care of your forever is either lying or forced to dramatically underpay you in the present to account for future risks and costs. Not a great deal for you. Or for me. But for most people? Probably a better deal than they'd have gotten otherwise.
Karellen 12y ago
"Giant collectives like governments and corporations cannot feel loyalty to you. Only individual people can do that." That is true to an large degree, but I think it over-simplifies things sligtly. Giant collectives like governments and corporations, and small collectives like startups, can still have a "culture" (for want of a better word). They have an institutional way of doing things, and they tend to hire people who fit that culture, who think in the same way, and hold the same values, as the people who are already there. In government, until sometime around the '80s, there was a strong culture of loyalty that went back a long, long time. Possibly to near the start of the 20th century, maybe further. In corporations, it was there too. It might have started dissolving in the '70s, and may not have gone further back than the '40s (although, e.g. IBM's may also go back to the '20s or '30s) but it was there for decades. Further, these organisational cultures were small-c conservative, eschewing change without good reason, and promoting people who thought likewise. Who would, in turn, do the same. And so you really could have a reasonable idea of the type of person who would be running the show 40 years from now. In fact, given a culture of loyalty and conservatism, you might even be able to tell who will be holding the power 40 years from now. It's 25-year-old Dave in the next office, who seems just that little bit more organised, that little bit more dependable, that little bit more of a "fit" than you and the people around you. Whether people were better off or not back then isn't something I want to get into, but even though the culture of loyalty is long gone now, it was a real tangible thing for decades, which is why it still echoes today. For instance, the lessons we learn from our parents stick with us. If they told us that jobs are for life, there will be some part of us that wants to believe that our current job is more secure than it might actually be. And so, for many people (well, many people over 30) it's an idea we have to consciously remind ourselves to ignore.

by ef4 12y ago

eropple 12y ago

> But it was never a great deal for employees. Security has a cost, and an employer who says they can take care of your forever is either lying or forced to dramatically underpay you in the present to account for future risks and costs. Not a great deal for you. Or for me. But for most people? Probably a better deal than they'd have gotten otherwise.

Karellen 12y ago

"Giant collectives like governments and corporations cannot feel loyalty to you. Only individual people can do that." That is true to an large degree, but I think it over-simplifies things sligtly. Giant collectives like governments and corporations, and small collectives like startups, can still have a "culture" (for want of a better word). They have an institutional way of doing things, and they tend to hire people who fit that culture, who think in the same way, and hold the same values, as the people who are already there. In government, until sometime around the '80s, there was a strong culture of loyalty that went back a long, long time. Possibly to near the start of the 20th century, maybe further. In corporations, it was there too. It might have started dissolving in the '70s, and may not have gone further back than the '40s (although, e.g. IBM's may also go back to the '20s or '30s) but it was there for decades. Further, these organisational cultures were small-c conservative, eschewing change without good reason, and promoting people who thought likewise. Who would, in turn, do the same. And so you really could have a reasonable idea of the type of person who would be running the show 40 years from now. In fact, given a culture of loyalty and conservatism, you might even be able to tell who will be holding the power 40 years from now. It's 25-year-old Dave in the next office, who seems just that little bit more organised, that little bit more dependable, that little bit more of a "fit" than you and the people around you. Whether people were better off or not back then isn't something I want to get into, but even though the culture of loyalty is long gone now, it was a real tangible thing for decades, which is why it still echoes today. For instance, the lessons we learn from our parents stick with us. If they told us that jobs are for life, there will be some part of us that wants to believe that our current job is more secure than it might actually be. And so, for many people (well, many people over 30) it's an idea we have to consciously remind ourselves to ignore.