Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

How work changed to make us all passionate quitters

#1
C C Offline
https://aeon.co/essays/how-work-changed-...e-quitters

EXCERPT: [...] Predictably, saying that ‘the market is the best way to organise or determine value’ overlooks many sorts of life dilemmas. Hayek did understand that his model of making the market so foundational would require a specific kind of person, a new kind of person. But he never developed an effective model for making complicated decisions such as deciding whom to hire for a job opening, or how to fashion a career over a lifetime. Others, the Nobel Prize-winner Gary Becker for example, who coined the idea of human capital, had to come up with concrete models for how people should, in market terms, understand everyday interactions. Inspired by Becker in adopting the market idiom, business writers began to talk about how people need to think about investing in themselves, and viewing themselves as an asset whose value only the market could effectively determine. Over time, a whole body of literature emerged advocating that people should view themselves as a business – a bundle of skills, assets, qualities, experiences and relationships to be managed and continually enhanced.

The change that saw business writers, career counsellors and others adopting the view that individual employees, or potential employees, should think of themselves as businesses occurred at the same time that the way the value of a company was assessed also changed. Not so long ago, business people thought that companies provided a wide variety of benefits to a large number of constituents – to upper management, to employees, to the local community, as well as to shareholders. Many of these benefits were long-term.

But as market value overtook other measures of a company’s value, maximising the short-term interests of shareholders began to override other concerns, other relationships. Quarterly earnings reports and stock prices became even more important, the sole measures of success. How companies treated employees changed, and has not changed back. A recent illustration of the ethos came when American Airlines, having decided that its current levels of compensation were not competitive, announced an increase to its staff salaries. The company was, in fact, funnelling money to workers instead of to its shareholders. Wall Street’s reaction was immediate: American Airlines’ stock price plummeted.

In general, to keep stock prices high, companies not only have to pay their employees as little as possible, they must also have as temporary a workforce as their particular business can allow. The more expendable the workforce, the easier it is to expand and contract in response to short-term demands. These are market and shareholder metrics. Their dominance diminished commitment to employees, and all other commitments but to shareholders, as much as the particular industry requirements of production allow. With companies so organised, the idea of loyalty receded.

Companies now needed to free themselves as much as possible of long-term obligations, such as pensions and other worker incentives. Employees who work long, and in many cases, intense hours to finish short-term projects, became more valuable. While companies rarely say so explicitly, in practice they often want employees who can be let go easily and with little fuss, employees who do not expect long-term commitments from their employer. But, like employment, loyalty is a two-way street – making jobs short-term, commitment-free enterprises leads to workers who view temporary work contracts as also desirable. You start hiring job-quitters.

Good jobs were ones with a good salary, benefits, etc. Now, it’s one that prepares you for your next job

The CEO of Me, Inc is a job-quitter for a good reason – the business world has come to agree with Hayek that market value is the best measure of value. As a consequence, a career means a string of jobs at different companies. So workers respond in kind, thinking about how to shape their career in a world where you can expect so little from employers. In a society where market rules rule, the only way for an employee to know her value is to look for another job and, if she finds one, usually to quit.

If you are a white-collar worker, it is simply rational to view yourself first and foremost as a job quitter – someone who takes a job for a certain amount of time when the best outcome is that you quit for another job (and the worst is that you get laid off). So how does work change when everyone is trying to become a quitter?

MORE: https://aeon.co/essays/how-work-changed-...e-quitters
Reply
#2
confused2 Offline
Wow!
Quote: So how does work change when everyone is trying to become a quitter?

A fairly obvious consequence is the total lack of integrity at any level in business today. Looking at Europe we have a spectacular example in the way car software was written to pass emissions tests set by (perhaps) honest people but with absolutely no intention of genuinely reducing car emissions.

To prevent BSE contaminated beef entering the food chain in the UK all abbatoirs are rigorously regulated and inspected by a dedicated team of government inspectors. The con falls apart when Victor's ID chip turns up in the mix and when Victor was alive he'd been a horse. The majority of EU mammals aren't ID chipped so that was bad luck.

Recently it becomes clear (in the UK) that responsibility for fire safety in high rise buildings was delegated to people who make money out of unsafe materials - with predictable consequences.

Certainly in the UK I think we have reached the point (perhaps situation normal) where integrity and wealth are mutually exclusive.
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
This is not about market value, but about loans. Shareholders are nothing more than lenders who expect an interest payment on their investment. Lending has twisted the market to favor lenders over all else. Shareholders don't care if the company survives long term, just that they have the foreknowledge to dump it before it tanks.

The free market has always been the ONLY way to determine value...other than by fiat.
Reply
#4
confused2 Offline
Syne Wrote:The free market has always been the ONLY way to determine value...other than by fiat.
There's nothing in the rules [of reality] that says you have to like it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)