NationStates Jolt Archive

You hear it quite often in common language. "He gave me a job", "I am looking for a job" and so on and so forth. One could be forgiven for thinking that people see the job as the traded item or service in question, when it fact it is the person's labour that is being traded.

Ultimately someone who is "looking for a job" is really looking for a customer. But rather than take the route that they would take if they were to sell anything else, in the labour market people seem to turn everything on its head: they make up exclusive dependency relationships and they feel resentment towards those who don't buy their labour. And if they're unemployed, it's the fault of those who don't "give jobs".

How much stress and anxiety regarding job security and unemployment do you think is due to this strange way people look at things? Wouldn't it be better if people saw themselves as service providers, independent salespeople of the best and most valuable good they have?

I think it would strengthen the role of the worker in the business environment. If I see myself as providing a service rather than being at the mercy of an employer, I may be more likely to be assertive and ask for the things I feel I deserve in exchange for my labor. The downside to this, of course, is that I'm running a higher risk of not being hired.

Mind you, since I'm a finance/economics major, I'm going to be in very high demand when I graduate, so I'll be in a good position to ask for the things I want from potential employers.

I fail to see the basis for your complaint given the cultural context.

it's because it is an employers market. nothing more.

I fail to see the basis for your complaint given the cultural context.
What do you mean?

It's quite simple: workers sell their services to employers. But somehow in language and common perception that is reversed, with adverse effects for employees and especially the unemployed.

How much stress and anxiety regarding job security and unemployment do you think is due to this strange way people look at things? Wouldn't it be better if people saw themselves as service providers, independent salespeople of the best and most valuable good they have?

I AM a service provider. As an independant, incorporated, consultant I DO sell myself and my resume to prospective clients. In that respect, given the average term of work runs between 6 and 12 months (albeit sometimes with renewl options) I have way more experience dealing with marketing myself than most who are out looking for work at any given time.

But when you have bills to pay, mouths to feed, and dreams to fulfill - it does not change one iota of the stress felt trying to maintain a relatively uninterrupted stream of employment.

Why?

Because for the bulk of people and their chosen professions, it is always a buyers market, and there are often few diferentiations between available providers inthe market from the standpoint of the buyer. The people purchasing labour services don't look at you as a service provider in most industries. They see you as an easily replaceable, hopefully moderatly-well-oiled cog in their machine - subject to retrofit or removal at their whim.

What do you mean?

It's quite simple: workers sell their services to employers. But somehow in language and common perception that is reversed, with adverse effects for employees and especially the unemployed.
This is a self oriented culture. People are focused on themselves, not others. The people arn't selling themselves because they believe things should be tailored to them.

Because for the bulk of people and their chosen professions, it is always a buyers market, and there are often few diferentiations between available providers inthe market from the standpoint of the buyer.
So what does a company do if it's faced with a buyer's market? None of us wastes a second thought on the company when we switch brands or stop buying something.

So companies try to differentiate, they try to become more competitive and more unique. Sometimes they try to move into a different market altogether.

That's what I mean, really. If you look at yourself from that perspective, you come up with solutions to your problem and implement them. If you blame a would-be employer for not buying your labour, you solve nothing and stay poor.

So what does a company do if it's faced with a buyer's market? None of us wastes a second thought on the company when we switch brands or stop buying something.

So companies try to differentiate, they try to become more competitive and more unique. Sometimes they try to move into a different market altogether.

That's what I mean, really. If you look at yourself from that perspective, you come up with solutions to your problem and implement them. If you blame a would-be employer for not buying your labour, you solve nothing and stay poor.

People try to do that too. The moves to different markets are difficult as, in the labour market, you need experience to sell yourself. For most entities selling brand X, they just need product differentiation and flashy marketing.

However few people "blame" would-be employers beyond that momentary feeling of rejection that people experience but corporate entities do not.

They blame their boss for giving the promotion to his friend instead of a better qualified employee because that is based on personal relationships rather than a level market.

And if you live in a small town with limited opportunity, there is the issue of having to leave your home to find work when the buyers market rejects you.

Some look at that as an opportunity, however to expect everyone in that position to be happy to have to leave their home/friends/familly support groups is naive of you.

Equating human emotions with impersonal market economics when dealing with the singular item (money) from which all other material things in life may become possible is impossible. I'm sure, however, the planet Vulcan would be right on board with your ideas.

What do you mean?

It's quite simple: workers sell their services to employers. But somehow in language and common perception that is reversed, with adverse effects for employees and especially the unemployed.
Translation:
It's quite simple: Let's blame the unemployed for all the problems of the world. It's never the fault of Business. Oh no! They're paragons of virtue, they are. We should feel ever so grateful they employ us. We need to get back to tugging our forelocks when the boss (actually don't you think 'our Lord and Master' sounds better) wastes his oh-so-valuable time on visiting us peons.


Interesting side-note: I mentioned to my mother the other day that I had run into a friend of mine. She was horrifed that I'd do such a thing.

Oh no! They're paragons of virtue, they are. We should feel ever so grateful they employ us.
But that's precisely what I mean by everything being turned on its head! You shouldn't be grateful that you're employed, your employer should be grateful that he's got you.

How much stress and anxiety regarding job security and unemployment do you think is due to this strange way people look at things? Wouldn't it be better if people saw themselves as service providers, independent salespeople of the best and most valuable good they have?

Since when do independent salespeople not complain when they make no sales after a hard day of work?

So changing that will have about 0% change in anxiety. Where 100% of the job security and unemployment stress/anxiety is due to the simple fact that they need money for food and pay their bills.

Since there are many more incidents of people at lower social status complaining about their job, I will approach it from that angle. You can see yourself as a salesperson who is offering your work, along with your soul and dignity in a single minimum wage package sure, but when thats not enough for you to pay your rent by the end of the day, the anxiety doesn't seem strange to me.

Languages are slippery. Describing trades can use the word gave in them. Such as, he gave me five dollars and gave him a calculator. Phrases like "he made me" or "my wife forced me to" do not mean someone coerced someone to do something. Its more like if one wants to keep another's good will they will do what that person wants.

Meh, they had this problem in Europe. Then the Black Death rolled around. Suddenly, workers were a more valuable resource as there simply wasn't as many of them left.

The answer is simple. Another wave of the Plague!!! Or a war. Wars generally accomplish the same thing. History tells us that there's always the right amount of jobs after a decent war. At least, if the country isn't structurally and mechanically ravaged. Hmm. How to cut down the population without actually destroying various factories and land resources to bring the resources of labour more into alignment with the capital, land, and entrepreneurial resources...

You hear it quite often in common language. "He gave me a job", "I am looking for a job" and so on and so forth. One could be forgiven for thinking that people see the job as the traded item or service in question, when it fact it is the person's labour that is being traded.

Ultimately someone who is "looking for a job" is really looking for a customer. But rather than take the route that they would take if they were to sell anything else, in the labour market people seem to turn everything on its head: they make up exclusive dependency relationships and they feel resentment towards those who don't buy their labour. And if they're unemployed, it's the fault of those who don't "give jobs".

How much stress and anxiety regarding job security and unemployment do you think is due to this strange way people look at things? Wouldn't it be better if people saw themselves as service providers, independent salespeople of the best and most valuable good they have?

It's a noble idea, but I doubt it will work out very well, look at the restaurant industry in the US... Service is expected to have their income partially supplemented through income derived directly from the customers; but the customers will still stiff them on this "income"... The average US Citizen wants service, demands service, feels they have a RIGHT to service... But paying those giving you the service is seen as "optional"; and we wonder why so many service positions (especially remote service) is being exported out of the country to places where companies can pay these people so much less.

You hear it quite often in common language. "He gave me a job", "I am looking for a job" and so on and so forth. One could be forgiven for thinking that people see the job as the traded item or service in question, when it fact it is the person's labour that is being traded.

You know, I was thinking about the same thing last week.

Here in Italy, the employer is called "datore di lavoro" (work-giver), while the employee is the "occupato" or "dipendente" (employed or dependant(-worker) ).

As a matter of fact, the employer should be viewed as a "work-buyer": he buys work and gives money in exchange. In the same fashion, the employee should be viewed as a "work-seller".

The "he gave me a job" approach symbolises, in my opinion, the subjugation of the employee to the employer, almost as if the employer did the worker a "favour" or a sort of "charitable act" by giving him a "job", meaning that the worker should be grateful for that and not fuss about low salaries etc.

This approach should be banned. If my employer "gave me a job" it's because he thought that my work is (at the very least) worth the wage he pays me, not because he's "good" and saved me from hunger and poverty.

How to cut down the population without actually destroying various factories and land resources to bring the resources of labour more into alignment with the capital, land, and entrepreneurial resources...

It's called a neutron bomb, I think.

It's called a neutron bomb, I think.

No, that kills many organisms. I'm talking about just the over supplied human labor resources...

Wooo. Libertarians in "not understanding how the real world works" shocker.