[FirmwareBurner]

Yes that's always the case, but it's naive to assume in any employment relationship that the ownership class has any other agenda than enriching themselves through the labor of the working class, same how the working class working for these major companies and enabling them to do what they do (including automating other peoples jobs to make them redundant and save their bosses money) have any other agenda than enriching themselves as well in the process.

At least until they themselves eventually find their place on the chopping block as well either through management decisions or automation hits them too. But SW devs never though of this as the market always favored them and they saw themselves as irreplaceable godlike figures at the top of the food chain, so maybe it's time to reconsider that mindset, gain some empathy about other people's jobs and think about unions to push back on certain industry trends that screw over the little guy, since what goes around comes around.

Whenever I sign a new employment contract, I'm aware it's not a charity, I'm there because they need me, as I make more money for them than they pay me, and I'm also aware that the moment that math stops being true, they won't hesitate to let me go and replace me with someone who can do the same work cheaper. Such is capitalism.

[aplusbi]

Most workers do have an agenda other than enriching themselves though:

* Self-satisfaction

* Sense of identity

* Belief in the company

* Desire to improve the world

* Puritanical work ethic

* etc

[FirmwareBurner]

I'd be surprised if that's "most workers". Some workers sure, especially those who already have some wealth like an already paid for house and can afford to be picky with their careers, but most workers who do not, are chasing wealth building and financial security first before being picky about the ethics and other aspects of their career.

[aplusbi]

Perhaps I worded it a bit poorly - I don't think most workers have a purely non-financial agenda. But most workers have multiple agendas for working, the financial agenda probably being the strongest.

But it's not a purely transactional agreement like you make it out to be.

[ryandrake]

This isn't a feature of capitalism as much as it's a feature of an environment with a lack of worker protections and no balance of power between workers and employers.

[FirmwareBurner]

Hate to break it to you but "zero workers' rights" absolutely IS a feature of capitalism, as you maximize profit and minimize costs at the expense of everything else.

Workers' rights are social policies which didn't come out of nowhere but sprung up mostly in post-WW1 and post-WW2 times when communist and socialist moves were becoming more and more popular with the labor class due to poor living and working conditions following the destructive wars, so the owner class, in Europe at least, along with governments, had to make concessions on working time, vacation days, sick pay, and implement public pensions, public healthcare, stuff which didn't really exists before, in order to prevent more riots and strikes and have the social stability to start rebuilding the nation.

The US didn't, firstly because of strong anti-communist movements and the red scare propaganda, despite socialist-labor movements existing there as well(see Oppenheimer), and secondly because the post-WW2 US workers had it way better than European workers meaning US workers were less incentivized to strike and riot for better living standards when they already had the best living standards in the world at that time, see the baby boomer generation.

Only the US workers of today, not counting tech workers, have it (largely) worse than their predecessors in terms of wages, purchasing power, debt, healthcare, education and housing affordability.

So time to unionize and strike maybe? Especially that before mass industrialization and urbanization, the US was basically a socialist country due to the way its communities were organized and worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkO63lMyAhE

[gottorf]

On the other hand, places with strong worker protections almost always have higher unemployment rates, especially among new entrants to the labor marketplace (i.e. young adults). So one must pick one's poison.

[Vilian]

source?