5 ms·

I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable, then screwing up means you're not worth the trouble. If you aren't easily replaceable (whether it's becaus

by orisho 1y ago

I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable, then screwing up means you're not worth the trouble. If you aren't easily replaceable (whether it's because you have demonstrated you're a good employee or you're working a high-demand role), you are worth the trouble and you'll get more chances. There are other reasons too, such as jurisdictions where suing after being laid off is more common, which makes more chances, PIP and severance packages more likely.

pixl97 1y ago
>I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable, then screwing up means you're not worth the trouble. These ideas work great when you have a large/growing labor population, we're seeing it start to fall apart in a tight/shrinking labor population. "nobody wants to work" is the drum beat of the employers that used to burn employes.
- rmah 1y ago
  Well, then they're not easily replaceable. Which implies those workers have other options. And thus employers that treat workers worse than other employers will see workers leave and/or find it harder or more expensive to hire. So it all works out.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    It all works out, unless everyone is doing it, and then entire swaths of the economy just burn down. In lower level jobs like retail and food service, nobody can retain workers. You would think then "oh, labor market, the cost of labor goes up" But no. Everyone is greedy, stubborn, and stupid. Instead, you just run your business with half the labor. Does it work? Not really. So then you think, "oh, well free market dynamics. These companies will go out of business because their product or service sucks" But no! Because everyone is doing it! And now everything just sucks!
    - danbolt 1y ago
      I promise I’m not that whiggish when it comes to automation, but there was a time when a good portion of human labour was washing clothing, and now that’s become much less of a thing for much of the world. Perhaps food service and in-person retail will start to go that way too. It’s my hope we can navigate that and still make a place where it won’t be so bad.
      - array_key_first 1y ago
        Most of the automating in retail isn't even automation, it's just corporate laziness. They're passing their job off to their own customers. Why am I bagging groceries? Am I on your payroll? Great, you put in a machine and replaced half your workers. Expect you replace them with me, your customers. The machine is just for kicks.
        danbolt 1y ago
        Sometimes we do our own laundry, sometimes we pump our own gas, and sometimes we prepare our own meals. Not having a servant to do those things for us doesn’t make us destitute; it makes us human.
        array_key_first 1y ago
        It's not a "servant", it's a service. Why don't I cut my own hair? Because I'm shit at it. If you went to a barber, and you sat down for a haircut, and they handed you a pair of clippers, would you go back? Fuck no! The problem with having customers do their own checkout isn't that the fat and lazy customers have to get off their fat asses. No. It's that customers are unbelievably shit at that. Have you noticed that, despite there being, like 10x as many self checkout lanes than before, the lines are longer than ever? Go ahead and do the math on that. Not only are people doing more work, they're paying more for it too, and it's a much worse service. Lose, lose, lose. Unless you're the corporate overlords.
    - lmm 1y ago
      Well, maybe fast-food restaurants were a low-interest-rate phenomenon or whatever the equivalent term is (a high-labour-supply phenomenon?). If that kind of business can't afford good enough working conditions to get a decent supply of labour while selling its products at a decent price, then yeah, the whole industry will burn. But if there's a demand for it then sooner or later someone will start offering it. I think that probably looks like a decoupling between middle-class-oriented (e.g. Costco or Chipotle) and working-class-oriented.

by orisho 1y ago

pixl97 1y ago

>I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable, then screwing up means you're not worth the trouble. These ideas work great when you have a large/growing labor population, we're seeing it start to fall apart in a tight/shrinking labor population. "nobody wants to work" is the drum beat of the employers that used to burn employes.

rmah 1y ago
Well, then they're not easily replaceable. Which implies those workers have other options. And thus employers that treat workers worse than other employers will see workers leave and/or find it harder or more expensive to hire. So it all works out.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  It all works out, unless everyone is doing it, and then entire swaths of the economy just burn down. In lower level jobs like retail and food service, nobody can retain workers. You would think then "oh, labor market, the cost of labor goes up" But no. Everyone is greedy, stubborn, and stupid. Instead, you just run your business with half the labor. Does it work? Not really. So then you think, "oh, well free market dynamics. These companies will go out of business because their product or service sucks" But no! Because everyone is doing it! And now everything just sucks!
  - danbolt 1y ago
    I promise I’m not that whiggish when it comes to automation, but there was a time when a good portion of human labour was washing clothing, and now that’s become much less of a thing for much of the world. Perhaps food service and in-person retail will start to go that way too. It’s my hope we can navigate that and still make a place where it won’t be so bad.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      Most of the automating in retail isn't even automation, it's just corporate laziness. They're passing their job off to their own customers. Why am I bagging groceries? Am I on your payroll? Great, you put in a machine and replaced half your workers. Expect you replace them with me, your customers. The machine is just for kicks.
      - danbolt 1y ago
        Sometimes we do our own laundry, sometimes we pump our own gas, and sometimes we prepare our own meals. Not having a servant to do those things for us doesn’t make us destitute; it makes us human.
        array_key_first 1y ago
        It's not a "servant", it's a service. Why don't I cut my own hair? Because I'm shit at it. If you went to a barber, and you sat down for a haircut, and they handed you a pair of clippers, would you go back? Fuck no! The problem with having customers do their own checkout isn't that the fat and lazy customers have to get off their fat asses. No. It's that customers are unbelievably shit at that. Have you noticed that, despite there being, like 10x as many self checkout lanes than before, the lines are longer than ever? Go ahead and do the math on that. Not only are people doing more work, they're paying more for it too, and it's a much worse service. Lose, lose, lose. Unless you're the corporate overlords.
  - lmm 1y ago
    Well, maybe fast-food restaurants were a low-interest-rate phenomenon or whatever the equivalent term is (a high-labour-supply phenomenon?). If that kind of business can't afford good enough working conditions to get a decent supply of labour while selling its products at a decent price, then yeah, the whole industry will burn. But if there's a demand for it then sooner or later someone will start offering it. I think that probably looks like a decoupling between middle-class-oriented (e.g. Costco or Chipotle) and working-class-oriented.