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’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?
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?
> 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.
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.
It’s indirect, but it’s still force.