Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Decoupling your employment

jonathanconway.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Decoupling your employment

#31

Post by saraid216 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #13
cperciva wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the theoretical argument for universal healthcare making people more willing to leave their jobs in search of better opportunities, but I'm having trouble squaring the theory with the reality I see today: I can't think of any country where job-hopping is more commonplace or more accepted than the USA. The only explanation I can think of right now is that people in the USA tend to be more self-centered and t…

"Any ideas?" Laws in the US are generally designed to make jobs temporary, as opposed to places like Japan and Germany where they're designed to keep you in one place for life. - It's very easy to fire workers in most places. - No compete clauses in employee contracts are invalid in many states. - Most jobs don't have significant barriers to entry. Some do like medicine, law, teaching, etc., but plenty of others have…

> - It's very easy to create and dissolve companies, and companies themselves are designed to be temporary.

Would you mind elaborating on this? I feel that this should be true, but in practice there are so many heavily branded names that it's hard to actually believe it.

Re: Decoupling your employment

#32

Post by gnosis »

charlieflowers wrote: post #12

What is with all the Rand hate? I myself don't know that much about her beyond the big picture (books she authored, something called Objectivism, etc.) There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).

There's also the little publicized matter of Rand's hero worship of a child killer[1], which fits her sociopathic "philosophy".

[1] - http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-c...

Re: Decoupling your employment

#34

Post by jonathanconway »

charlieflowers wrote: post #12

What is with all the Rand hate? I myself don't know that much about her beyond the big picture (books she authored, something called Objectivism, etc.) There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).

I agree with you that there are a lot of people who simply refuse to engage with Rand's ideas.

No matter how much one dislikes an idea, I think one should be willing to understand and engage with it, especially if it's an important idea that has had influence (as some of Rand's ideas have, for example, her concept of "force").

I personally agree with most of Rand's philosophy, but that doesn't prevent me from being willing to listen to and engage in discourse with Marxists, Keynsians, and other schools of thought which differ strongly from Objectivism.

If someone really thinks their ideas are true and right, then they should have the confidence to see those ideas tried and tested in the real world, against all the alternatives.

They should count it as a privilege to discuss/debate their ideas with opposing schools (as long as everyone respects basic manners/decency), because doing so will deepen their knowledge and improve their ability to convince others of their ideas.

Anyway enough ranting. :)

Re: Decoupling your employment

#35

Post by jonathanconway »

qq66 wrote: post #22
csense wrote: post #21

If he was offered a salary of $100 million per year, I'm sure the author wouldn't refuse it on the basis of a gym membership being part of the package. This example shows that the services he names have some finite value (perhaps zero or negative) which can be added to the salary value. A person considering a change in employment just needs to figure out what that value is, so you can put competing offers from differ…

Since he's claiming to value benefits at near-zero, a better counterexample might be a job paying below-market wage, but with free use of a private jet, a personal chef and trainer, and other insane perks :)

Now a job like that I would strongly consider. :)

Re: Decoupling your employment

#36

Post by jonathanconway »

eaurouge wrote: post #16
jonathanconway wrote: post #7

I included the Ayn Rand quote because it's simply the most straight-forward and succinct summary of what my blog post was all about. I hazard a guess that those who detest Rand's thought will probably equally detest mine. :)

“A rational man never leaves his interests at the mercy of any one person or single, specific concrete. He may need clients, but not any one particular client — he may need a job, but not any one particular job.” I included the Ayn Rand quote because it's simply the most straight-forward and succinct summary of what my blog post was all about. In the context of your blog post, the Ayn Rand quote is arguing for MULTIP…

I think you misunderstand my intentions. What I meant is that one SHOULD have multiple clients/multiple jobs, and that doing so will be easier if one doesn't become too dependent on any one employer due to benefits, etc.

Re: Decoupling your employment

#37

Post by wybo »

charlieflowers wrote: post #12

What is with all the Rand hate? I myself don't know that much about her beyond the big picture (books she authored, something called Objectivism, etc.) There seems to be a large group that detests her. Where is that coming from? (Honest question looking for facts, not to start a pointless debate).

I think it is because her philosophy is naive in that it only considers the economic angle, and extremist in that by doing this, it takes market-thinking to it's brutal extreme.

The market, and the self-care that drives it, are wonderful mechanisms, and have brought great wealth. But (stating the obvious) humans need more than being able to buy and sell at will. They need health-care, education, welfare, etc (even if their parents / family happens to be poor). There are other factors than market-fairness that a civilized society should take into account. Not doing so is economism. And almost every one of us probably knows someone who would have been left to rot/die by Rand'ists if they had it their way.

So I would not say it is (just) hate that makes people stop listening when Rand comes up. But rather a kind of (not very laudable) impatience with naivite, that might be familiar to anyone who ever did any teaching, or for example tried to guide a novice elderly person through using a computer.

Re: Decoupling your employment

#38

Post by wtracy »

saraid216 wrote: post #31
Alex3917 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Any ideas?" Laws in the US are generally designed to make jobs temporary, as opposed to places like Japan and Germany where they're designed to keep you in one place for life. - It's very easy to fire workers in most places. - No compete clauses in employee contracts are invalid in many states. - Most jobs don't have significant barriers to entry. Some do like medicine, law, teaching, etc., but plenty of others have…

> - It's very easy to create and dissolve companies, and companies themselves are designed to be temporary. Would you mind elaborating on this? I feel that this should be true, but in practice there are so many heavily branded names that it's hard to actually believe it.

I think he meant that, from the perspective of the law, corporations are meant to be temporary entities--not that they are generally run with the intent of being temporary.

Re: Decoupling your employment

#39

Post by meric »

Could it be the tax on these 'benefits' is less than that for salary? So if you were an employee that would've subscribed to these things anyway, both you and your employer would benefit having the employer pay for the benefits and incur less tax in the process.

Re: Decoupling your employment

#40

Post by tomjen3 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #25
mememememememe wrote: post #9

The author is a consultant so I find this article biased. A friend of mine works as insurance manager and he has dealt with some startups and many medium-size companies. Group purchase is relatively cheaper and more convenient to manage. So why people love universal health package from your boss? The most obvious reason is it cost a few thousand dollars per year to cover your own premium. http://news.ehealthinsurance…

"According to the source above, family is around $4000, and individual is around $3000" Additionally, I think the average listed there is a misleadingly low self-selector in that most anyone who has a pre-existing condition is likely to get quotes so expensive that getting an individual or family plan outside of the workplace is simply not a financially viable option. There are many, many Americans for whom health in…

As somebody who is not an american, why would it be cheaper to get a health insurance through work if I had a preexisting condition - other than the obvious tax savings?
Post reply on HN