[door3]

Every person under capitalism has to sell their labor in order to survive. This means that the employee and employer are not on equal footing - I cannot reasonably refuse to work and live a comfortable lifestyle, which means I have to make certain sacrifices (ie, working 40 hours a week in order to survive). This is all fine if I feel like I am treated well and compensated fairly, but if I feel like I am not, as an individual I have very little power. I can quit, but if I feel like most workers in my industry are not treated fairly, there's nowhere to go. However, if I organize with other workers, I have the bargaining power to make certain demands: suddenly employers realize if they want to employ people who have my skills, they have to meet certain reasonably requirements with regards to hours, compensation, etc.

Things like the 40 hour workweek aren't just a result of market forces. Market forces by themselves literally worked people to death - life expectancy in Liverpool during the industrial revolution was 15. It was through organization and struggle that workers achieved the rights they have today.

[Zanni]

This is not only not true but incredibly disempowering. Every person under capitalism has to create value that others will pay for. It could be a traditional job, freelance work, a small business, a startup, being the stay-at-home domestic partner, performing, etc. Most people will choose a job because that's an easier path with well-defined benefits, but if you limit yourself to that, you're really boxing yourself in. What if you want to be a film director or a novelist? Those aren't even jobs you can apply for.

[hueving]

This comment seems to ignore the large portion of people that operate as small businesses. They make money by selling products they create or services they provide, not raw labor to customers.

You certainly can choose not to work for any given company (or even industry). You just might take a pay cut or might have to take on some personal financial risks to start your own business, which isn't palatable to some people.

[pjc50]

> isn't palatable to some people

And doesn't seem to be economically viable for everyone to do, or we'd already be doing it.

The main financial risk for people is that cashflow problems can lead pretty rapidly to homelessness or health deterioration.

[GFischer]

See Coase's Theory of the Firm. Technology is changing the equation by removing transaction costs, and you see more freelancers and self-employed and Uber drivers.

I agree that the current framework makes freelancers and self-employed more vulnerable to cashflow problems, and it's an issue.

I've seen some interesting ways to mitigate it, even in my own country (with affordable health services for small business owners but they have salary caps that exclude IT workers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm

[hueving]

It is economically viable for massively more people to do it. The main issue is a lack of simple economics and business education in US high school graduates. Without that, people have no idea how to go about starting their own small businesses.

[ryanobjc]

And rightfully so - the world can’t all be small businesses of 1-2 persons.

There are things worth doing that require a large team working closely. More closely than a bunch of mercurial small businesses.

[hueving]

There are lots of things that don't require dedicated employees that companies insist on.

For example, a public school shouldn't need to employ janitors, it should just contract with cleaning companies.

Unfortunately, the high school systems in the US give people no education on starting small businesses so people lack the economic and practical knowledge on doing so.

[GFischer]

I'm not even sure a cleaning company is needed, why not a cleaning Uber? (well, sounds like Homejoy actually, but for businesses)