antisoeu

You inserted the "all", I did not write "they fire all the young people". It's also just an example.

It is also not a given that young people will have it easier to find a new job. Youth unemployment is at staggering heights in many countries.

And by your logic, there still is no incentive for young people to support the unions. They could just give up their jobs voluntarily, if they are so convinced that it is the right thing to do.

Again, it is a fake distinction.

Suppose you had a robot. Would that robot be labor or capital? Assume the robot has the same capability for work as you.

At the end of the day it is a machine, so "capital". Likewise you own your body, it is your capital.

That's nonsense.

In your terms then, just let everybody be self-employed and contract them, rather than employ them. That's the same result I want, that people are responsible for themselves and making a contract with somebody to do some work for you doesn't come with any additional baggage. Just plain money for work.

Somebody doing your kitchen doesn't have to be employed by somebody else. They can simply have a contract with you. You pay them x in exchange for them going y in your kitchen.

Of course they can have opinions or refuse to do things in certain ways. But they can't force you to have a pink wall color, or other things. At most, perhaps if the see something dangerous or illegal in your kitchen, they may have a duty to do something about it.

Likewise, an employee can refuse to do things by simply quitting the job.

Harassment: again, quit your job, apart from that, general laws about harassment should apply, independent from you being an employee or not.

"fiduciary duty" - where does that come from? Why does somebody suddenly have a duty to take care of you? I am self employed. Why do you get people to have the duty to take care of you, but I don't? Who should have the duty to take care of me?

Suppose you pay me to renovate your kitchen.

Now what is your duty towards me? Is it now your duty to see that I earn a living wage and have job security forever? All just because you simply wanted a new wall color in your kitchen?

No matter what revenue they generate, I find it hard to argue that a janitor at Google deserves more than a janitor somewhere else. Presumably they are all doing the same kind of work. Doesn't mean Google shouldn't pay their janitors more, just that they shouldn't have to.

True about Google creating that culture themselves, I don't pity them. I just reject the sentiment in general.

Don't you notice that you contradict yourself? You claim they don't decide who gets fired, and in the next paragraph you explain that they will get younger people fired, because they are presumed to have an easier time finding new jobs.

"They" help formulate - I don't think the young people who get fired belong to the "they" very much. Otherwise, again, there would be no need for unions. The young people would just volunteer to quit for the sake of the old people.

As long as they get no special rights to form their unions, fine. In my country, unions get special protections by law, which is not OK.

If workers simply choose to monopolize, of course they can do that. Of course laws against monopolies in general should then also be abolished, though.

You can not be in favor of unions, but opposed to monopolies, as unions are also monopolies.

In that sense, no, I don't care what they feel entitled to - there should just be no obligation to give them what they feel they are entitled to.

Capital and labor is a fake distinction. Your body/capability to work is capital.

"Wishing them away won't have any effect."

Laws and social constructs can be changed.

As for health insurance (as an example), how do you justify giving health insurance to employees, but not to other people, like self-employed people?

Why do I lose that right? Back to the example of your kitchen: you hire somebody to redo your kitchen. Why would they have a say in how you want to have your kitchen redone?

If you work for a company and you feel they are making bad decisions and perhaps your job is in peril (because the company may go down), it is high time to look for a new job.

And again, who then decides what is or is not a bad decision? Courts will get to decide on economic decisions. But lawyers have studied law, not economics. How does that make sense?

Sure, management can be shit, but then the company should simply go to ruins. Likewise, employee decisions can be bad, too. It's mostly magical thinking to assume with unionized employees there will be better decision making.

If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions.

With unions, in the end you have courts decide on economic decisions. That's bullshit.

There aren't any.

"everyone has to play the optimization game as much as the most optimal are optimizing, otherwise they're 'losing' in our economic system, relatively speaking."

If a person is happy with their salary, are they really being taken advantage of? Just because they could perhaps get a better salary, doesn't mean they are forced to go for it. I suspect such cases are also rarer than one might think. I would expect most people to occasionally check their market value.

"greed" is just a negative way to frame it. Ultimately, striving for optimal outcomes is what stabilizes systems and makes them healthier and more efficient. Competition is the only known way to ensure fair prices. Every other approach can and will be gamed (corruption), but you can not fake prices.

It's also all nice to talk about being social, but I think many employees are less happy in reality when they find they have to compensate for their unproductive colleagues and even get less pay. That gets people riled up quickly in the real world.

"That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat"

Presumably you were paid for your services. If you were unhappy with the pay, you should have renegotiated or changed jobs.

It's still a social construct - all the laws, even nations, are social constructs. I'm saying there should be no special benefits for employees.

If your boss suffers no consequences if you leave, then your job is superfluous and you should leave, or your boss should be allowed to fire you.

Exercising one's power - sure, employees can do that, and I support that. I just don't think they should deserve special protections and rights for doing that.

If I had an employee and they would tell me "I think your management is shit and I want to make the rules now", I would like to be allowed to fire them.

The "they will work harder" argument is bullshit. If that would apply, companies giving their employees more say and shares would be more successful, and drive away the others, all without the need to form unions.

I mean it is possible that shareholders will work harder. But that is not an argument for unions.

Also, some employees are people like cooks or janitors. Will they really work harder, and what would that even mean? What if they just do their jobs? Does a janitor at Google really deserve more money than a janitor somewhere else? What makes them the "chosen ones"? Just lucky to work for a successful company?

As for democracy - because companies are somebody's property. Do you demand democracy in your home? That is, can I decide on a new wall color in your kitchen? I vote for you to paint your kitchen pink, how about that?

Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave.

"authoritarians" - is that what they call entrepreneurs these days?

Personally I think the category "employee" should be forbidden. It is a pure social construct. Why is anybody entitled to be an "employee" and bitch about "authoritarians"?

Everybody is an entrepreneur. If you have nothing, you sell your body and work hours. But that's just a contract like every other contract.

In any case, if those workers don't like the authoritarians, they are free to start their own companies. Then they get to call the shots.

If it is not entitlement, it is greed. I don't say greed is wrong or should be forbidden, just that they should be honest about it.

Just call it what it is, greed. Why is it greedy if company owners want to make money, but "good and social" if workers want to make money?

I don't think the "earnings per employee" metric entitles employees to anything.

Here in Germany unions (in tech) will for example make sure that older employees can't be fired, so the younger employees will be fired instead. So I don't think you can simply claim they are beneficial for everybody.

You are not a victim if you are the only non-white person in a room or the only woman at a conference. It's absurd to make a connection to "victim blaming" here.

Noticing such quotas as such is of course not racist or sexist. Acting because of them is. Feeling like a victim because you are the only "X" in the room is also racist or sexist (depending on context).

And are you saying his ONLY reason for "leaving the art scene" was because everybody else had white skin color? Not even because of their behavior? How is that not racist? And if he left because of the behavior, and describes it as being "white", it is also racist. There is no way to interpret his statement as not being racist.

As for "leaving the art scene", I bet he doesn't reject "white money" and 99% of his funding is from white people. In the article it is also stated that "European museums" bought his art.

It's racism if you define a scene by people's skin color. Not sure what there is to talk about.

yaakov34 explains it well.

It's still racist. I personally even think racism should be legal - in general, people having wrong opinions should be legal. Doesn't mean I have to like them.

Does ASML belong to "the EU", though, or is it a private company?