The left seems to want to put up as many barriers as they can when a company wants to hire an employee

[Axulus]

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital?

A robot never makes an injury claim or gets injured on the job, doesn't care if the workplace environment is unsafe, never sues you for discrimination, harassment, unlawful termination, never cares if you no longer need to use it and doesn't claim unemployment benefits, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care insurance, doesn't need to save for retirement, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children and needs to pay for the expenses associated with that and the time of that sometimes requires, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes while performing its job function, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, doesn't need to commute to work, and more. By passing more and more laws relating to these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired due to the extreme expensive and risk involved and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to have a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough? This seems to be what is entailed by making the employer the cradle to the grave caretaker of every employee.

Can anyone with a straight face really claim that putting all the burden on the employer for every single one of these things has no effect on employment and wages?

 

[fromderinside]

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital?

A robot never makes an injury claim or gets injured on the job, doesn't care if the workplace environment is unsafe, never sues you for discrimination, harassment, unlawful termination, never cares if you no longer need to use it and doesn't claim unemployment benefits, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care insurance, doesn't need to save for retirement, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children and needs to pay for the expenses associated with that and the time of that sometimes requires, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes while performing its job function, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, doesn't need to commute to work, and more. By passing more and more laws relating to these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired due to the extreme expensive and risk involved and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to have a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough? This seems to be what is entailed by making the employer the cradle to the grave caretaker of every employee.

Can anyone with a straight face really claim that putting all the burden on the employer for every single one of these things has no effect on employment and wages?

Oooh, That government restriction on employers to make their employees have children so the government can regulate the companies on them is huge. /snark.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, fucking people. Why do we suck so much?

Do any of us really have an idea of how hard it is on right wingers to need to deal with us?

We really have to start stepping our shit up for their sake.

 

[Axulus]

Ya, fucking people. Why do we suck so much?

Do any of us really have an idea of how hard it is on right wingers to need to deal with us?

We really have to start stepping our shit up for their sake.

Interesting, so left wing business owners don't have to deal with any of those things?

You don't think the law has any effect on the burden put on employers and therefore their willingness to hire as many people as they otherwise would?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, fucking people. Why do we suck so much?

Do any of us really have an idea of how hard it is on right wingers to need to deal with us?

We really have to start stepping our shit up for their sake.

Interesting, so left wing business owners don't have to deal with any of those things?

You don't think the law has any effect on the burden put on employers?

Look, I'm just saying that people are horrible and am apologizing to you on behalf of all of us for all the crap we put you through.

We feel your pain. Robots wouldn't feel your pain. Unless you program them to feel your pain, of course, but that would be a dickish thing to do - even to a robot.

 

[Axulus]

Interesting, so left wing business owners don't have to deal with any of those things?

You don't think the law has any effect on the burden put on employers?

Look, I'm just saying that people are horrible and am apologizing to you on behalf of all of us for all the crap we put you through.

We feel your pain. Robots wouldn't feel your pain. Unless you program them to feel your pain, of course, but that would be a dickish thing to do - even to a robot.

People as employees have negatives/downsides that robots don't share not equal to people are horrible, that's a value judgment you placed on them, not me.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Dude, you don't need to sugarcoat things. We understand how badly we suck. All of our wanting to eat and slack off at home instead of nutting up and not letting the cancer keep us out of he office. It's pathetic. We get it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Are you drunk?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you drunk?

It is after noon.

 

[Jayjay]

So... more rights to employees means more investments on robotics which means better productivity and more wealth overall. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Axulus]

So... more rights to employees means more investments on robotics which means better productivity and more wealth overall. Isn't that a good thing?

Not for the people who are displaced and unable to get hired anywhere. For the robot developers, sure, and eventually for the businesses as well (the initial investment will be a hit to their wealth, but they'll eventually recoup it).

Also, why should several weeks of vacation, a living well wage, health insurance, a company funded retirement pension, family leave, unemployment benefits etc. be a right, as mandated by law, that must be provided/funded by the _employer_?

 

[Jayjay]

So... more rights to employees means more investments on robotics which means better productivity and more wealth overall. Isn't that a good thing?

Not for the people who are displaced and unable to get hired anywhere. For the robot developers, sure, and eventually for the businesses as well (the initial investment will be a hit to their wealth, but they'll eventually recoup it).

Also, why should several weeks of vacation, a living well wage, health insurance, a company funded retirement pension, family leave, unemployment benefits etc. be a right, as mandated by law, that must be provided/funded by the _employer_?

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But promising us robots to do all our work for us is not a compelling argument for the contrary. This is like saying, "if you don't eat your broccoli, I guess I'll just have to buy you candy for dinner from now on!"

 

[Axulus]

Not for the people who are displaced and unable to get hired anywhere. For the robot developers, sure, and eventually for the businesses as well (the initial investment will be a hit to their wealth, but they'll eventually recoup it).

Also, why should several weeks of vacation, a living well wage, health insurance, a company funded retirement pension, family leave, unemployment benefits etc. be a right, as mandated by law, that must be provided/funded by the _employer_?

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But promising us robots to do all our work for us is not a compelling argument for the contrary. This is like saying, "if you don't eat your broccoli, I guess I'll just have to buy you candy for dinner from now on!"

My argument to the contrary is that there will be more and more people that won't be able to find any job for any wage the more costly and burdensome you make it for employers to hire employees.

The robot thing was just an example to highlight the alternatives that do or will exist to hiring employees (but not the only reason).

To use an analogy, all the burdens and restrictions and expense put in place to adopt a kid make it so that fewer kids get adopted. The far left seems to want to make hiring an employee more akin to adopting a kid, with all the initial ongoing expense that requires, requiring the employer to take care of their every need.

 

[Ford]

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it.

Yeah, what the fuck, the left?

An ideal society would be one where an employer would be completely free from liability when it comes to workplace safety. Get your arm torn off in a shoddily constructed machine? Sucks to be you!

An ideal society would be one where employers would be free to discriminate, harass, and fire employees for no reason whatsoever. What's that? You're a woman whose boss attempted to fondle you in the broom closet? Lucky you! That black lady who tried to get your secretary job was told she couldn't be hired because your company doesn't employ the Negroes.

And in this ideal society, you should earn exactly what your employer decides you're worth. If that's below poverty wages, too fucking bad. Maybe you should work 24/7 if you want to make more money, you lazy ass.

Vacation? Fuck no! Sick leave? Get sick and we'll replace you! Oh but if you have children, then there's an opportunity for you in this brave new world, because once they're old enough to operate the shoddily constructed equipment, the tots can go to work and add to the family income!


That is, until they get hurt on the job, then fuck those little bastards, right?



Man, this sounds like paradise doesn't it? Can't believe a system where the employer held all the power and the employees were helpless wage slaves hasn't been tried before. If it had been, then surely laborers would have rallied in defense of it, since it would have worked out so well for them.

 

[bilby]

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But promising us robots to do all our work for us is not a compelling argument for the contrary. This is like saying, "if you don't eat your broccoli, I guess I'll just have to buy you candy for dinner from now on!"

My argument to the contrary is that there will be more and more people that won't be able to find any job for any wage the more costly and burdensome you make it for employers to hire employees.

The robot thing was just an example to highlight the alternatives that do or will exist to hiring employees (but not the only reason).

To use an analogy, all the burdens and restrictions and expense put in place to adopt a kid make it so that fewer kids get adopted. The far left seems to want to make hiring an employee more akin to adopting a kid, with all the initial ongoing expense that requires, requiring the employer to take care of their every need.

If a job can be automated, it should be.

If humans are too valuable to do menial work, then the solution is to provide them with education and training, such that they can do non-menial work.

Set a high minimum wage, eliminating all the drudge jobs people hate doing, and tax the FUCK out of the now very wealthy people who are making a killing because they need not employ expensive humans. Use the tax money to pay for the education and training of those who can benefit from it; and to feed and house those who can't.

Simple.

Nobody wants a shit job; So automate the shit jobs and either provide good jobs, or provide decent unemployment benefits.

If society really can't find something useful for people to do, making them do something that's not useful in exchange for enough income to live is just needless cruelty.

 

[ksen]

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital?

A robot never makes an injury claim or gets injured on the job, doesn't care if the workplace environment is unsafe, never sues you for discrimination, harassment, unlawful termination, never cares if you no longer need to use it and doesn't claim unemployment benefits, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care insurance, doesn't need to save for retirement, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children and needs to pay for the expenses associated with that and the time of that sometimes requires, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes while performing its job function, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, doesn't need to commute to work, and more. By passing more and more laws relating to these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired due to the extreme expensive and risk involved and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to have a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough? This seems to be what is entailed by making the employer the cradle to the grave caretaker of every employee.

Can anyone with a straight face really claim that putting all the burden on the employer for every single one of these things has no effect on employment and wages?

jesus h christ

 

[Axulus]

My argument to the contrary is that there will be more and more people that won't be able to find any job for any wage the more costly and burdensome you make it for employers to hire employees.

The robot thing was just an example to highlight the alternatives that do or will exist to hiring employees (but not the only reason).

To use an analogy, all the burdens and restrictions and expense put in place to adopt a kid make it so that fewer kids get adopted. The far left seems to want to make hiring an employee more akin to adopting a kid, with all the initial ongoing expense that requires, requiring the employer to take care of their every need.

If a job can be automated, it should be.

If humans are too valuable to do menial work, then the solution is to provide them with education and training, such that they can do non-menial work.

Set a high minimum wage, eliminating all the drudge jobs people hate doing, and tax the FUCK out of the now very wealthy people who are making a killing because they need not employ expensive humans. Use the tax money to pay for the education and training of those who can benefit from it; and to feed and house those who can't.

Simple.

Nobody wants a shit job; So automate the shit jobs and either provide good jobs, or provide decent unemployment benefits.

If society really can't find something useful for people to do, making them do something that's not useful in exchange for enough income to live is just needless cruelty.

And how does making employees way more expensive to hire do anything to contribute to their education and training?

You are right that it will contribute to their replacement with automation which you apparently see as always a good thing, but they don't magically become educated, productive and trained by passing endless reams of laws making it more burdensome and expensive to hire them.

 

[ksen]

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

Leftist ideas that should be opposed are:

1) safe workplaces
2) clean environment
3) protections from discrimination
4) protections from harassment
5) protections from unlawful termination (so much for law abiding being a guiding principle)
6) unemployment benefits
7) minimum wage laws
8) 8 hour workdays
9) overtime
10) weekends
11) health insurance
12) retirement savings
13) paid time off
14) child bearing
15) caring for children
16) paying taxes
17) right to work
18) job training
19) transportation

I will accept that the Left is for all those things. Are you really arguing that the Right is against all those things and that society would be better without those things?

 

[Axulus]

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

Leftist ideas that should be opposed are:

1) safe workplaces
2) clean environment
3) protections from discrimination
4) protections from harassment
5) protections from unlawful termination (so much for law abiding being a guiding principle)
6) unemployment benefits
7) minimum wage laws
8) 8 hour workdays
9) overtime
10) weekends
11) health insurance
12) retirement savings
13) paid time off
14) child bearing
15) caring for children
16) paying taxes
17) right to work
18) job training
19) transportation

I will accept that the Left is for all those things. Are you really arguing that the Right is against all those things and that society would be better without those things?

Should the _employer_ be required to pay for _all_ of it, by law, whenever an employee is hired? That is the subject of the thread.

Are you going on record as saying yes, yes they should, for everything?

You acknowledge that this makes way more people unemployable for life and discourages hiring due to the expense and burden you place on employers whenever they want to hire someone? And you are OK with that?

What percent of permanent unemployment is acceptable to you? Is France's near constant double digit unemployment rates, which may get worse as more automation replaces workers, an acceptable outcome to you?

 

[bilby]

If a job can be automated, it should be.

If humans are too valuable to do menial work, then the solution is to provide them with education and training, such that they can do non-menial work.

Set a high minimum wage, eliminating all the drudge jobs people hate doing, and tax the FUCK out of the now very wealthy people who are making a killing because they need not employ expensive humans. Use the tax money to pay for the education and training of those who can benefit from it; and to feed and house those who can't.

Simple.

Nobody wants a shit job; So automate the shit jobs and either provide good jobs, or provide decent unemployment benefits.

If society really can't find something useful for people to do, making them do something that's not useful in exchange for enough income to live is just needless cruelty.

And how does making employees way more expensive to hire do anything to contribute to their education and training?

You are right that it will contribute to their replacement with automation, but they don't magically become educated and productive by passing laws making it burdensome and expensive to hire them.

Of course not; You have to have the whole package - automation, productivity and taxation.

The problem is that the owners of the machines want to have the benefits without paying for them - they make more money by automating, but they don't want to pay any of it to support or train the workers they laid off.

It boils down to whether the economy is meant to serve only the wealthy, or to serve everyone.

That's just a choice - there is no physical constraint on one option or the other. As a society, we decide whether to be inclusive or exclusive. If wealthy people want to be greedy fucks and hoard all the goodies to the point that other people are starving or sleeping in the streets, then that's their call - but they should bear in mind that historically such situations have often ended with their heads no longer connected to their bodies.

The poor will do what they must to survive; The rich are better served by having an orderly and formal system to support the poor (ie taxation to fund welfare) than the alternative which is the transfer of wealth through crime (or even revolution), which is disorderly, highly inefficient, dirty, and dangerous.