[ArnoVW]

but if you no longer work for your boss, why should he pay you? in fact, how could he pay you? if the value your work should create has not been created?

do you want to force him to pay you? would that not just be the same thing in reverse?

does that mean that everyone should be paid by everyone?

I never understood this sort of reasoning.

[testing22321]

I’ve lived in a couple of countries where I continue to get healthcare and higher education and more when I’m not working. It’s very nice. Not surprisingly those countries are at the top of the most livable countries/cities in the world, while countries that don’t are not even in the top 50.

Why is it ok to force someone to pay for fighter planes, moon missions and freeways but not for food and healthcare?

Are you suggesting nobody should pay taxes?

[ArnoVW]

in the last 50 years I've lived in NL, UK and FR.

if your point is that on a societal level there should be a social security system, we're in agreement.

The exchange was about how "a boss" had power over you. I just pointed out that an individual company could not be held responsible for that security system. So yes, your boss has power over you?

But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work.

If you lose your job for longer, you still get fed and housed, but it's a painful experience. Partly to force you back to work, but mainly for a simple economic reason : we don't have infinite wealth to redistribute.

To redistribute wealth you need to generate it first. If there were no "force" on people, people would be less likely to drive a bus 8h a day, wake up at 3am to bake bread, or work 8h a day in a factory. I agree that their life would be better, and they might take better care of their children or parents, make more art, or read more books. But since that does not generate a working bus system, bread, or money that you can redistribute, I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?

[testing22321]

> But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work

That’s incorrect.

Australia pays benefits forever. Even if you’ve never had a job. Even if you quit because you were bored.

Plenty of countries have free university, and pay a living allowance to students.

I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?

Provide a good base life (healthcare, for a start), and offer good wages to those who choose that. Again, plenty of countries do that now.

[ArnoVW]

Not sure what we are arguing here.

So we have established that the original point "the boss that you work for has power over you" is unfortunate but logical.

We have also established that a social safety net is a good thing, have agreed that it cannot be the role of individuals, and that we have delegated that to the state.

In the case of Australia, your example, it is actually a very sober system. There is no unemployment insurance like there is in Europe. In France or the Netherlands, if you lose your job and it is not your own doing, for two years your income level is sort of maintained (generally ~70%). Not in Australiaa. In Australia, if you lose your job, you go straight to the "JobSeeker Allowment", which is a fraction of minimum income. There are conditions to this allowment: you have to be registered as a job seeker, develop a job plan, apply to a set number of jobs or do a set number of trainings, volonteering, etc. So again, force is being used to get you to work, and if you do not comply, you lose (part of) your (already sober) rights. This is basically the same "basic income" that exists in many western societies.

And so now we're talking about university fees, which is another thing altogether. But OK, let's discuss university. There are two main ways that this is organised. Either the state subsidises basic secondary education, so that entry-level schools are (almost) free (generally still one months income per year, or thereabout). Generally this means that "better" schools are private and have annual tuition costs of upwards of a year of wages. This is for example the case in France.

In other systems, the state provides you a student loan. You may or may not have to pay interest over the capital sum, but it is still a loan. In some countries you don't have to pay back the loan if you finish the education. For example, in the Netherlands it is a loan, but it becomes a gift if you finish the education "on time".

In your example, Australia, is a "income‑contingent loan system". Repayments start once your income passes a threshold. The amount never becomes a gift, though if you never cross the threshhold the debt disappears when you die (well, your children pay it out of your inheritence, if something is left).

So, again, no free money: there are strings attached to incite people to work.

I'm not saying that this gives me great pleasure, just that this seems logical, since without extrinsic motivation it seems likely that a big set of economic activities would not be possible, for lack of manpower. Some day we may have a society of abundance, à la Star Trek, where money does not matter. But we are not currently in that society, because we do not have unlimited resources and energy?

[Forgeties79]

I’ve always found the language in these cases to be severe so I get your reaction and agree in some ways, but it’s also not as simple as you’re making it out to be.

If I am your employer and I know you don’t really have any viable options/are economically insecure, I can put the squeeze on you because I know if I lay you off or you quit your life could be ruined. I know that the threat of you losing your job is going to drastically increase your tolerance for what I can ask of you. That is not a very tenable situation and it’s one a lot of people experience, whether their employer knowingly does it or not.

It’s not a fair power dynamic at the end of the day. In that case it’s true - my employer can force me to do a lot of things I would otherwise not agree to.

For an even less severe example, think of how many people have had to say the phrase “I can’t say no, I will lose my job.” In an ideal world you would be able to apply “the free market” to bad jobs, but in reality it’s nothing like that in the slightest except in very narrow cases and usually for a temporary duration, especially in the US where losing your job means you (and possibly your family) losing healthcare or otherwise being unable to pay your premiums. Many people simply can’t walk no matter how much pressure and abuse is applied to them. Hence “wage slave” as a term.

[ArnoVW]

We were talking about a boss who made passive aggressive remarks. And that it was unfair that people could not stop working. I just pointed out that the responsibility of the social protection could not fall on the shoulders of individual employers.

We have created trade unions, works councils and labor laws to protect against the most egregious abuses of power. Many countries have a social safety net. All of these are good things.

I just don't see how one can argue in good faith that "not working" (the original point) should be a human right, guaranteed by society without any condition. On a macro-economic level how would that work?

[Forgeties79]

We’re not just talking about that specific instance anymore - I agree that’s clearly not “slavery” - the scope has clearly expanded into a larger issue about the power dynamics between employers and employees and how it can (and does) lead to compulsion/abuse.

> We have created trade unions, works councils and labor laws to protect against the most egregious abuses of power. Many countries have a social safety net. All of these are good things.

You may have them where you live but we do not have nearly as robust systems in the US. All of these systems are notoriously weak here and are trending weaker with each year for the last 60 years or so. For some light context: less than 10% of the US workforce is unionized, I believe it’s closer to 4% in the private center but I would need to doublecheck. Most Americans don’t even know what a “work council” is and our current NLRB is a joke. Combined with our very weak social safety nets and it’s easy to see how precarious the situation is for many people here.

Depending on which article/study you want to believe, roughly between 35% and 50% of the US workforce fears retaliation in the workplace for speaking up. That is a very high percentage of people and is indicative to me of a very unhealthy workplace power dynamic.

[ArnoVW]

Well the vibe I am getting from testing22321 is more one of "there should be unconditional support from society". See the points about free education and (supposed) unlimited benefits in Autralia. As said, it's not that I am against them, I just don't see how as a matter of practicality that would work on a societal scale.

I know the current situation in the US. So if you want to argue that the US has in general a poor social safety net, find someone who disagrees with you. In my mind, as long as Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarassed millionaires" living in the "greatest country on earth", and keep voting against their own interest, I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Forgeties79]

> I know the current situation in the US.

The situation in the US is not as you described in your previous comment. That’s why I felt the need to explain the woefully inadequate safety nets and worker protections we have here.

I feel like you’re conflating some things here and oversimplifying poverty/under-employment, but we can just move on. Suffice to say I don’t agree with your assessment of the root causes here.