The brief Age of the Worker is over – employers have the upper hand again
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Oh, it's an op/ed by an employer. Laughably transparent.
Yet there will always be some people who buy into it. I've found that a distinction between independent- and conventional-minded is useful for navigating this sort of thing. It helps immensely to ask oneself, "Why do I think this?" If my answer happens to be some version of, "Because someone told me," then it's worth more independent thought.
Never understood why the guardian gave him a platform.
As long as birth rates remain low, we will see worker powers continue to expand. As long as education remains expensive, we will see the supply of actually good knowledge workers decrease.
The only reason it appears employers have the upper hand at the moment is a concerted effort to drive down salaries - a power grab while interest rates are high that they can use as an excuse.
Looking to new disruptors in tech/finance over the next 5-10 years. As we saw with Meta and the other big tech co., it only takes one powerful disruptor. We will see which way the wind blows.
Here's the author's blurb: Gene Marks is a columnist, author and small business owner. His company, the Marks Group PC, provides technology and financial management services to SMBs in the US and abroad.
Mr. Marks respectfully, I hope you are advising your clients that to increase their potential hiring pool in this historically tight labor market, they embrace remote work.
Not at all, society literally breaks down if that is the case because those services would displace 2/3 of the work out there.
Hungry people riot, unrest ensues, and most people have been taught (as a core identity) that if you work hard you will be better off and have a good future for yourself and your children. Those core identity promises being recognized as lies would drive a mass movement of mostly irrational people. You then get the law of reverse effect (psychology) driving this. Who is responsible, who is to blame.
Someone will always have that answer and it need not be true because at that point they won't care.
Also, at 2/3 the population, you are also dealing with intelligent irrationality, a misnomer but the potential risks from that group are much higher, complex, and more costly.
Intelligence is speed and planning.
Right now the market for sv caliber engineering talent is incredibly hot.
But to answer your question, regulatory/government capture.
> Quiet quitting is a mindset in which employees deliberately limit work activities to their job description, meet yet not exceed the previously established expectations, never volunteer for additional tasks and do all this to merely maintain their current employment status while prioritizing their well-being over organizational goals.
Once upon a time, this was called "doing your job". I think this is why OP chose to say it was manufactured. It's telling that the term is "quiet quitting" rather than something which doesn't suggest someone is shirking responsibility ("job disengagement", "occupational disinterest", etc).
Talk of "quiet quitting" is an attempt from the management class to make the managed class believe they should be working harder after the latter realized they weren't actually seeing any benefits for their hard work.
Imagine, giving power to goons who touch reality with their hands, and have to see ALL the consequences of business!