1173
I wonder why I dont get invited to parties anymore.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
1173 points (97.5% liked)
memes
10412 readers
459 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Self employment is very much not something you should seek. Self employment means the worker support all the risk. That's a boon for the capitalists. Why do you think uber and stuff are so successful?
I think in this context self-employed means being a farmer, carpenter, grocer, etc. not a 1099 contractor.
And that's even worse.
Being self employed means you support all the risks of your activity, without any mutualisation or support from society or partners. That's a distopia.
I would hardly call that self-employed.
It depends on whether your business accumulates assets of value. Uber drivers are functionally employees, and they really ought to be classified as such. They can't sell their right to drive for Uber, their car wasn't exactly a business asset before they started driving for Uber. The mere fact that we say "they're diving for Uber" and not "they started an independent taxi service and have partnered with Uber" should really be all you need to know about the reality of the practical ownership and employee status when a person drives for Uber.
Anyway, when you're self-employed you should be building up assets, in part, because if things go tits up you can at least sell what's left of your business. You're right, self-employed does mean greater risk, but there's also the potential for higher reward. As a society, we benefit from having a decent fraction of the population be self-employed, because smaller businesses can be more flexible and more innovative. That's part of why it's important to have strong social safety nets, so that the risk of self-employment is lower than it has to be.
The problem with what you're saying is that either you're employed without any if the benefits of employment, or you are a capitalist.
In either way you lose.
On the other hand a company can be a cooperative or state owned.
But in the US you hate the state, you are indoctrinated with individualism and you hate socialism. So it's a lost cause.
I mean, there's no reason you can't structure your business as a cooperative (in fact, you probably should) but typically we use the term "self-employed" for one person businesses, where the distinction is kinda moot.
Employment is production for the direct benefit of capitalists. Uber drivers are employees, whether Uber wants to call them that or not.
Self-employment is literally the worker owning and operating the means of production.
Our economic and social policies should favor self employment.
Wrong. A company can be a cooperative or state owned.
Being self employed though means you are the only one to support the risks of your activity and it leaves you a pray from bigger businesses.
But liberal propaganda did its job and you're probably indoctrinated with individualism and liberalism.
I see. Because big businesses prey on small businesses, small businesses just shouldn't exist, and it's liberal, libertarian, individualistic propaganda to argue otherwise.
Small businesses grow, that's how capitalism works. When OP talks about empowering individuals, that's liberal ideology. When talking about how self-employment is better for society, that's liberal ideology.
That's patently false. Most small businesses start small and never grow beyond that small stage.
I don't get the impression that you have any experience with small business. You certainly don't have enough to speak with the degree of authority you have assumed.
I know plenty of small businesses. I know none that keep to one person and aren't disguised employees.
But then, if there are two persons in your business, who's the boss? And if there's none, congrats, it's a cooperative!
Employment is something workers won in the early 20th century. Ask yourself why they fought for it maybe. Then come back with your arrogance.
Then you don't know many small businesses. There are more sole proprietorships than every other type of business combined.
That's called a "partnership". That's the second most common type of business.
Labor laws are what workers won in the early 20th century, not employment. Employment long predated labor laws.
The reason they fought for labor laws is because employment naturally trends toward exploitation, and needs to be reined in through regulation. Unfortunately, influence in labor regulation is now dominated by employer, not employee, so exploitation is not being adequately addressed.
Employer exploitation is not a problem for the self employed.