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

The Modern Workforce

jeremycai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: The Modern Workforce

#41

Post by pc86 »

alexqgb wrote: post #33
yummyfajitas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I leave town and rent out my flat, wear and tear on the elevator goes up relative to me not leaving town?

Are you trolling again, yummy? Or are you honestly too thoughtless to recognize that a stream of people who have no long-term stake in a building do not conduct themselves in the same community-oriented way that's normal among those who do?

I prefer to believe that most people do not treat common areas of buildings like garbage. There are exceptions, of course, but it's not like having an apartment that you rent out a few weeks a year will throw the apartment building into a constant state of disrepair.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#42

Post by dang »

alexqgb wrote: post #33
yummyfajitas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I leave town and rent out my flat, wear and tear on the elevator goes up relative to me not leaving town?

Are you trolling again, yummy? Or are you honestly too thoughtless to recognize that a stream of people who have no long-term stake in a building do not conduct themselves in the same community-oriented way that's normal among those who do?

> Are you trolling again, yummy? Or are you honestly too thoughtless

That is not ok in a HN comment, regardless of how wrong "yummy" may be. Please don't do this. The HN guidelines say:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

This is a practical rule. Applying it, your comment can be shortened to:

A stream of people who have no long-term stake in a building do not conduct themselves in the same community-oriented way that's normal among those who do.

... which is a fine, substantive point.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#43

Post by bdat »

mattmanser wrote: post #29
eldavido wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, except (1) it's your obligation to change the law as a voter and (2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law . So really, it's up to us as citizens to decide what's fair, and get the appropriate legislation passed to change it.

What's a shareholder's best interest? It's a meaningless phrase and simply an excuse for acting like a dick.

This made me laugh and is totally true. Defining your timeline seems like a necessary first step to using that phrase.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#44

Post by walshemj »

colechristensen wrote: post #15
doki_pen wrote: post #9

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your em…

It depends on the relationship, being an actual independent contractor is truly liberating. Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. There is real freedom in that as long as you get paid appropriately and actually get that freedom. Companies wanting to save money on benefits while having 9-5 workers with no freedom of choice of when or…

But most seem to be w2 who don't get the benefits of being independent or employed.

Like most things in employment crappy poor employers spoil it for the rest.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#45

Post by pkaye »

mattmanser wrote: post #29
eldavido wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, except (1) it's your obligation to change the law as a voter and (2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law . So really, it's up to us as citizens to decide what's fair, and get the appropriate legislation passed to change it.

What's a shareholder's best interest? It's a meaningless phrase and simply an excuse for acting like a dick.

Well, it is always in the shareholder's interest to give the management sky high bonuses.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#46

Post by [deleted] »

mattmanser wrote: post #29
eldavido wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, except (1) it's your obligation to change the law as a voter and (2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law . So really, it's up to us as citizens to decide what's fair, and get the appropriate legislation passed to change it.

What's a shareholder's best interest? It's a meaningless phrase and simply an excuse for acting like a dick.

[deleted]

Re: The Modern Workforce

#47

Post by rogerbinns »

doki_pen wrote: post #9

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your em…

The core underlying problem is traditional society benefits have been pushed onto employers in the US. This is absurd and hurts everyone. Employers don't have the same societal incentives, are less efficient at delivering them, it isn't part of their business anyway, and puts them in a position of power. Workers have a choice of not much of a safety net, or having to pick the least worst employers. If those benefits were moved back to being provided by society then it would raise the bar for all employers.

For example if paternity/maternity leave and income were society provided, then an employer could only be more generous. Even if they do nothing and fire the employees, at least those employees would get the leave and some income certainty. The same principle applies to healthcare, wages (compete with minimum wages/basic incomes etc) etc.

I think that instead of making more and more laws (each of which has more and more unintended consequences, loopholes, expenditures etc), go ahead and simplify. Treat everyone in society well, and make that treatment come from society, and not some idiotic stick poking at employers who have completely different incentives and competencies.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#48

Post by paganel »

jjoonathan wrote: post #40
colechristensen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the relationship, being an actual independent contractor is truly liberating. Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. There is real freedom in that as long as you get paid appropriately and actually get that freedom. Companies wanting to save money on benefits while having 9-5 workers with no freedom of choice of when or…

> It depends on the relationship No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Supply/demand balance and friction matter far more than how "nice" your customer/employer is. The distinction is crucially important: if relationship quality were an independent variable, everyone would…

> No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism.

Exactly. And it's not for nothing that "Workers of the world, unite!" is included in the Communist Manifesto, as uniting themselves against their employers was one of the few methods of gaining leverage for 19th-century workers.

If it counts I'm more of a Libertarian kind of guy, but even so I'm wondering for how long these growing power-unbalances will be ignored by both those "in power" (corporate employers, politicians, finance people) who just seem to crave for more and more, and also by us, the "normal people", who just carry on with our lives like things have never been better.

Because at the end of it all private property is merely a social construct, and once 100, 1000, 10000 people will find it strange that their combined earnings amount to what a "capitalist" or financier earns, then, just maybe, those people will decide to put that rich guy/girl in front of a wall and shoot him/her down. It happened before (see the Bolsheviks, for example), not sure why it couldn't happen again.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#49

Post by Florin_Andrei »

doki_pen wrote: post #9

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your em…

> Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law.

A civilization so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

Re: The Modern Workforce

#50

Post by Florin_Andrei »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36
doki_pen wrote: post #9

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your em…

It took 200 years and a lot of bloodshed to establish those working rights. It's ironic how they're now being destroyed and workers themselves let this happen. I guess the social memory is capped at the timespan of two generations.

> It took 200 years and a lot of bloodshed to establish those working rights. It's ironic how they're now being destroyed and workers themselves let this happen.

Chain the bodies, and the slaves will fight you tooth and nail. Chain the minds, and they will defend their own servitude.

Post reply on HN