[csallen]

To me what you're upset about basically sounds like, "People who have more money/power/etc have it easier than those who don't."

Yes, yes, they do. So what?

All else being equal, greater wealth generally brings greater ease and comfort. A billionaire’s life is easier than a millionaire’s, a millionaire’s life is easier than being a middle-class Westerner, middle class living is easier than living below the poverty line, living below the poverty line in a wealthy country is easier than being poor in a developing country, and being poor in a developing country is easier than surviving as a subsistence farmer or living without shelter at all.

All else being equal, if you're a majority owner in a company, you're going to get away with a lot more than if you are a smaller owner, or a non-owner, or an employee, or a customer. All else being equal, if you're a general in the military, you're going to have more power and more leeway than if you're a lieutenant or a private.

Etc etc.

I fail to see what is wrong with this.

[card_zero]

Potentially, universal human rights is what's wrong with it. Much depends on what "get away with" and "leeway" actually mean. There's a difference between owning a jacuzzi and owning a high court judge. Between these there's a gray area of things people vaguely disapprove of, and sometimes it turns out that they're decided to be illegal.

[csallen]

Sure, we're all in agreement that one should not be able to buy a judge, or violate human rights. But that's not what we're talking about.

What no_wizard and others in this thread are upset about is the owner/leadership of a company firing employees from that company. no_wizard goes so far as to suggest that that's "entitled" behavior.

IMO he has it exactly backwards.

We have at-will employment in 49 out of 50 states for a reason. You're adults entering into a mutually agreed upon contract where you trade money for services rendered. Your company is not your parent/nanny/caretaker who owes you continued employment and predictability in life. And vice versa, if you are a company owner, your employees are not your slaves who owe you work or continued employment.

Employees have the freedom to quit at any time, and owners have the freedom to fire them at any time. Both of these actions can adversely affect the other party, but that's life. People are free to do what they want with their own companies and their own availability as employees, and just because we would prefer them to continue giving us money or employment doesn't mean we are owed that. Neither quitting nor firing is entitled.

What is entitled is the belief that you are somehow owed your job (or vice versa, that you are owed continued tenure by your employees), and that for them to cancel the at-will contract when they no longer want it is worthy of punishment.

[no_wizard]

>What no_wizard and others in this thread are upset about is the owner/leadership of a company firing employees from that company. no_wizard goes so far as to suggest that that's "entitled" behavior.

It is entitled behavior. In the very literal sense of the word entitled. They wouldn't have such power to affect so many people unless they had a form of entitlement.

>We have at-will employment in 49 out of 50 states for a reason. You're adults entering into a mutually agreed upon contract where you trade money for services rendered. Your company is not your parent/nanny/caretaker who owes you continued employment and predictability in life. And vice versa, if you are a company owner, your employees are not your slaves who owe you work or continued employment.

We don't have at will employment because workers decided its what's best for the arrangement. There's been systematic efforts by business lobbying politicians. Its a well documented history. At will employment overwhelming benefits employers, not employees. Its not an equal relationship. The reason we have at will employment so prevalent is because it undermines unions. Its not because its the best and most equitable arrangement between employers and employees

>What is entitled is the belief that you are somehow owed your job (or vice versa, that you are owed continued tenure by your employees), and that for them to cancel the at-will contract when they no longer want it is worthy of punishment.

Who said anything about owed a job? What I'm saying is there is a lack of consequences for executives and by extension companies.

Triggering a wealth tax would be one. Companies that are profitable laying off thousands of people being required to pay fairer severances would be another form of consequence.

The specifics of all that can be debated, what I'm saying head on though is there should be higher consequences for their stupidity and inability to deploy resources effectively.

[csallen]

> The reason we have at will employment so prevalent is because it undermines unions. Its not because its the best and most equitable arrangement between employers and employees

At-will employment came about in the 1870s and predates the predates major union battles and influence. It's part of American culture, which treats adults like adults who are able to make decisions on their own. I support it as both an employer and and employee. It's a big reason there's so much mobility in the tech industry and in other areas with high-skilled employees.

In many places that don't have at-will employment, employees get stronger firing protections, sure, but it's also common that they have to give longer notice before quitting, can be subject to more stringing non-competes, etc.

I don't want any of that. People should be able to quit, and companies should be able to fire, and the consequences for the other party are not either party's responsibility. As a business owner, it's your company, and you need to be prepared for employees to quit. As an employee, it's your life, and you need to be financially prepared to lose your job at all times.

I absolutely do not want a nanny market that forces private citizens to be responsible for each other. That's what the government is for. We already made this mistake tying healthcare to businesses and employment. It's a huge mistake.

If you want to benefit more from at-will employment, you can learn more and get a higher skilled job with more bargaining power. Or you can take the massive risk to start and own your own company. If you don't want to do that, then that's your choice.

---

> What I'm saying is there is a lack of consequences for executives and by extension companies.

There are consequences. If you mismanage your company, it will fail. This happens tens of thousands of times per day in America.

Similarly, if you're an adult, and you go out and get a job, and you don't prepare for the fact that you might lose that job at any time for any reason, then there are consequences for you. The second you go out an sign an employment contract, you should prepare for the very obvious and predictable circumstance that your job might someday end. This is not someone else's responsibility. It's your sole responsibility.

It's not fellow citizens' or your boss' job or your company's job to nanny you and manage your financial situation in life. That's what the government is for. If you fail to prepare in life, then you can fall back to government entitlement programs, which are aptly named, because they are benefits you are entitled to.

You're absolutely not entitled to someone else who owns a company taking care of you, or worrying about what happens after you lose your job, or any other part of your private life. Just like they are not entitled to you worrying about what happens to the company if you quit.

Nor is either party entitled to some sort of weird vindictive emotion they may have to punish or hurt the other side if the employment contract is unilaterally ended. Thank god.

---

> Triggering a wealth tax would be one. Companies that are profitable laying off thousands of people being required to pay fairer severances would be another form of consequence. The specifics of all that can be debated, what I'm saying head on though is there should be higher consequences for their stupidity and inability to deploy resources effectively.

I don't see why. This just seems vindictive/punitive to me.

The market already punishes companies for mismanagement. As much as everybody likes to focus on the tiny percentage of really rich companies that do well enough to survive a big mistake, the vast majority of founders and CEOs never get to that level. They lose their companies and possibly their shirts before that ever happens.

If you start a company and you get through the gauntlet and you make it successful enough and rich enough that you can employ thousands of people, that's great. It was your competence that created those jobs, and your incompetence (or straightforward market forces) can destroy them, and that's that. If other people don't like it, they can go work somewhere else.

It's just very hard for me to understand this alternative perspective you're promoting, which imo fails to treat adults as adults, and is more akin to a nanny situation. I'm very grateful to live in the US where the game is played differently, and the last thing I want is for it to turn into something resembling Europe.

I like individual responsibility. I like treating adults like adults. I like the fact that the sky is the limit and the ceiling is high for the most skilled and ambitious people. And hell, I also like having a high floor. I just think that floor needs to come from the government and taxes.

What I don't like is this entitled idea that one's fellow citizens need to be their nannies, need to be punished, or need to be held down, just because they're successful.