Markets are a chaotic system and the needs of a business must constantly adapt - or they go out of business.
You jest, but that's pretty much South Korea if this video (and my interpretation of it) is to be believed: https://youtu.be/pjjhrwVYPE8
For those not interested in watching 30 mins of this, long story short, it doesn't bode well. They do have some other circumstances going on in addition though.
This, but unironically. Companies that make money without hiring anyone provide the most "value".
Simultaneously we should stop calling business owners "job creators". They're actually "job minimizers". They only hire people when there's no other choice.
Basically, yet more management by fad.
Back in the Great Depression, my great grandmother got sick and was hospitalized, and they took care of her until she passed. My grandfather did not have enough to pay the bill. The hospital told him not to worry, just pay what he could. It took him a while, but he paid the bill in full.
> and they're better off for it
In the US, the cost of medical care rose in step with inflation until 1968. After that, it rose at a much steeper rate, and has not slowed down. 1968 was when the government got involved with health care.
Countries with a heavily-interfered health care system are poorer as a result.
Consider that getting the government out of healthcare would mean all the rural hospitals close.
Consider who that would most-hurt, while saving you money, before you jump to the humanitarian position. Consider it in light of the 2024 election.
Why not civil war?
> It took him a while, but he paid the bill in full.
How long was “a while” specifically? And how much did it affect your grandfathers life?
My great grandmother's brother, Frank Taylor, fought in the Union Army. He later became a bodyguard for Buffalo Bill. And that's all I know about him, and the personal side of the Civil War.
Keep in mind that doctoring was pretty primitive in those days. A doctor could set your broken bones and sew up wounds, and that's about it. You got better or you died. Doctors were called "sawbones" in those days.
> How long was “a while” specifically?
If I recall correctly, it took him 3 years. I don't know much about his finances.
I do know that his first job was shoveling coal in a steamship, which is a filthy, rotten job.
i spent $57 on a regular size pack of paper towels and toilet paper in the bay area yesterday
truly, the invisible hand is giving us the finger
The government puts its foot on the scale there.
In contrast, look at the software industry. No regulations, yet highly sophisticated software where the price went to zero. I just reinstalled Ubuntu on my (now fixed!) computer, and every bit of the software was 100% free. And I give away the software I write for it!
$zero!! Can you believe it?
Also software can be reproduced without cost. I cannot get back surgery without a lot of physical time and labor and resources.
I think you're rage baiting at this point so I'm done.
The tribes usually treat the members as a family. While kicking someone from a tribe can happen, it's considered to be a harsh punishment.
In a tribe, when hard times come, people usually redistribute. That's a normal, human way of dealing with that situation. Not a layoff.
The other aspect is the economic crises. When a central bank decides to increase interest rates, it decreases lending to new investments in favor of lower inflation. This can lead to layoffs, instead of having inflation inflicted on everyone (especially the rich with huge savings). So that decision is essentially some random guys get kicked out of economic (and societal) participation in order to prevent more redistribution of existing wealth.
If you think about it, yes layoffs are deeply immoral. But we can understand, why they happen in capitalism, as a sort of big tragedy of the commons.
At least this is in the case in the US. What you are saying might be true in other cultures.
Most people's reactions to large-scale movements like this seem to imply that we feel there should be something more than a simple "money duty" between employer and employee, and we seem to also have respect for companies that act that way (e.g, some Japanese companies perhaps, or baseball teams keeping a sick player on the payroll so they get healthcare even though they never play another game).
Attempting to realize that duty and at the same time abscond it to the state or the family may be an aspect of the failing.
It glosses over the fact that employers exercise control over the social relations required for production (of anything larger that can be built by a self-employed person). This happens by virtue of owning all the crucial means of production involved. And that point, where you need to coordinate work of several people, it ceases to be a system of contractors who freely determine their working conditions, and becomes a collective that has a common goal.
So no, it's not case in the U.S., in no economy of the world is majority of production organized into everyone being a little independent contractor who brings (or rents) their own equipment. That would be horribly inefficient (not to mention that people don't want it either, by and large).
There is a clear rebut to this, how can employer own the social relations (required for production), like managerial relationships, when they ostensibly only own the factory equipment? Well, it's like when you own an appartment, you technically only own the four walls, but practically you also enjoy the privacy that comes with it. In a similar way, capitalists owning a factory don't just rent equipment to a bunch workers, but can dictate the whole social superstructure of production, including the redistribution of earnings.
The role an employer plays in societies varies from culture to culture, but note that in many cultures, it is "just a job".
Like when a traumatised kid never loved by the parents concludes that life is harsh and love doesn't exist, so better be tough.
That's a lot of stuff you're saying. Not what I'm saying.
Drama is just in the head of people melted in the ambient narrative, sure.
It's no more immoral than you deciding to buy from Safeway, even though you'd been buying from Fred Meyer before.
Also, employees can quit anytime, no notice required. Nobody is obliged to work.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Don’t give me a sob story about mom and pop shop, we’re talking about a trillion dollar company.
> Also, employees can quit anytime, no notice required. Nobody is obliged to work.
Okay? What’s your point?
The grocery stores were run by national chains. Starbucks is global.
> What’s your point?
It's symmetric. Companies employ at will, and workers work at will.
So you’re confirming my point that billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying?
> It's symmetric. Companies employ at will, and workers work at will.
Workers don’t work at will. Last time I checked UBI is not there, so workers work to pay the bills and put food on the table.
They have zero power over individuals. They cannot make you work. They cannot prevent you from working for someone else. They cannot arrest you. They cannot confiscate things from you. They cannot tell you were to live. They cannot shoot your dog. They cannot evict you. They cannot fine you. They cannot tell you what to do after hours. You can quit at any time for any reason. Your rights are completely intact.
> Workers don’t work at will.
"at will" has a legal meaning, meaning they can work or quit or change jobs at any time. No law or company rule can prevent that.
It was chains of their own making, the company was not even aware of it.
They weren't poor people, either. They had a McMansion, nice furniture, snazzy clothes and his&hers new cars.
A friend of mine, much lower on the pay scale, came to me once for some financial advice. He was married, and lived in a modest apartment. He could not pay the bills. The problem was he had his+hers new cars with stiff payments. I advised him to sell the cars, and buy ones he could afford. I was surprised that he followed my advice, and got his finances back on their feet.
A reasonable goal is to save/invest 20% of your income.
P.S. You can cut spending dramatically by getting a roommate. I had roommates for years.
What’s your net worth? How much do you own at moment? How much have you inherited?
> They cannot tell you were to live.
Yes, they can. If you don’t have money to pay for mortgage, you have to leave.
> They cannot shoot your dog.
No, but landlord can say “no dogs”, which will reduce your pool of rental options.
> They cannot evict you.
The banks and government will, right.
> They cannot fine you
So you going from $100k+ salary to, potentially, welfare isn’t a problem at all?
> They cannot tell you what to do after hours.
Of course not, they can just gaslight you under threat of pip to be on-call for extra hours.
> Your rights are completely intact.
Companies have responsibility to society beyond making money to shareholders and upholding legal laws.
> "at will" has a legal meaning, meaning they can work or quit or change jobs at any time. No law or company rule can prevent that.
No wonder “the American Dream” is dead.
Ironically, you (along with a significant number of others) deciding to buy from a competitor will eventually lead to financial trouble for Safeway and thus to layoffs and losses for their investors (pension funds among them).
So, do you find your decision to buy from Fred Meyer "absolutely immoral"?!