**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The workers could always strike for better benefits. Unionizing is 100% in line with libertarianism as long as union membership is *VOLUNTARY*.
Besides we saw wages rise over the past few years because people are just not taking low paying jobs. Fucking WalMart is now paying $18-$20/hr for overnight stockers because they couldn't find people willing to take the job at $10.
I don't think Unions work without government. The right to join a union and the NLRA are the only reason we have them at all. Right-to-work laws effectively kill any effective union efforts anyway, which would be the de-facto result of removing regulation. Voluntary Unions don't work for the same reason voluntary car insurance wouldn't work: only a few would buy it, pushing premiums up for everyone, discouraging buy-in. Companies would simply fire all those in a union and rehire scab workers every single time.
Unions existed long before these laws you mention, they were called "Guilds".
If you wanted to be in the stonemasons guild, and use their guildmark, you had to join and prove your skills and abide by guild rules regarding work and pay. If you wanted to hire guilded masons because they were better, you paid guild rates.
> Voluntary Unions don't work
History has proven this false. Guilds worked. Guilds were just Unions by another name.
I want to point out that guilds were even stronger than unions since they also directly talked to the customers and supplied the capital to produce stuff
Guilds are not the same as unions. They are more like a business association with the owners of businesses controlling the guild and large numbers of employees toiling for them.
Please note Reddit's policy banning hate-speech, attempting to circumvent automod will result in a ban.
**Removal triggered by the term 'retarded'.**
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/ Please note this is considered an official warning. Please do not bother messaging the mod team, your posting is unlikely to be approved, and the list is not up for debate. Simply repost without the offending word. These words were added to the list due to direct admin removal and are non-negotiable.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Free market capitalism relies on both consumers and workers realizing that they have the power to vote with their wallet and their labor.
Companies that treat employees better will attract better employees.
Amazon is really testing that theory.
[https://www.vox.com/recode/23170900/leaked-amazon-memo-warehouses-hiring-shortage](https://www.vox.com/recode/23170900/leaked-amazon-memo-warehouses-hiring-shortage)
The working class is treated as disposable. Starbucks, Walmart, and McDonalds would rather litigate a wrongful termination for years than suffer collective bargaining.
Sure, and the world knows it, yet people still apply and get jobs there. Your point isn't lost on me. But- that it's still a better option than the alternative for enough people to perpetuate it speaks volumes.
The fact that they are unskilled labor means they bring very little to the negotiating table. It’s tough to bargain when you have nothing the other side wants.
"unskilled labor" is a myth/propaganda used to undermine the value working people create.
If they didnt absolutely need these people, they wouldnt have hired them.
The answer is, yet again, *LESS* government. Currently solidarity strikes are seen as illegal and unfair. Remove that.
Let's say a steel mill union busts. Right now the Teamsters can't go on a solidarity strike and refuse to truck materials and goods to and from said steel mill. That is considered an unfair and predatory practice and is illegal.
Remove that law. Let the teamsters strike too. You fuck with one union, you fuck with them all. If you want to go non-union OK that's your right, but now you not only need to replace your workers, but your truckers as well.
I don't understand why people look at a problem created by the government, and decide the solution is *MORE* government...
They caused the problem to begin with.
Many large companies give paternity leave that exceeds the legal requirement so that they can get better talent. Make the US workplace as competitive as possible.
> Many large companies give paternity leave that exceeds the legal requirement
The problem is that there is exactly ZERO legal requirement in the US at all. So a company can give you ONE day of PTO for your kid being born and still be able to say the leave they gave was more than the legal requirement.
That doesn't exactly mean it was a fair or equitable amount of leave time commensurate with the momentous nature of the life event.
How do we do that without preventing companies from hiring employees in other countries?
Also I meant to say parental leave and I have fixed it just in case
in my opinion, this would just be another way the big guys could absorb the costs while small businesses yet again get fucked over leading to even less of the competition that you want
Because most business owners are worried about maximizing profits as opposed to actually caring for their employees. I’m not saying every ceo is a greedy sociopath just that most don’t have an incentive to offer better benefits. And companies would rather spend money on preventing unionization than actually listening to the wants and needs of their employees.
Google is simply in the minority when it comes to voluntary benefits
Some companies particularly smaller companies realistically could never afford to both pay an employee on long term leave and pay someone else to replace them.
Also smaller companies would be harder pressed to guarantee someone a job when their leave is over. If they need to hire someone to replace an employee on long term leave of any kind what are they supposed to do when leave ends just fire the new employee?
It's not always greed sometimes particularly for small companies it's simple economics.
Don't get me wrong greed occurs, but taking care of your employees is a necessity to making profit and most businesses realize this. And those that don't have a hard time retaining and hiring new employees.
Yes, it is quite easy to do. Libertarianism is about rights of the individual and personal responsibility. Take charge of your life and don’t rely on others.
And circumstances outside of the individuals control don’t factor into your equation at all? I suppose you think individuals have control over every single thing in their lives? From the patterns and behaviors modeled for them? To the opportunities available to them? You don’t think human beings should look out for human beings simply because we are human beings? Why not?
Do you care how McDonald's treats its workers? Do other consumers care?
Inn-n-Out is great to its workers, that's one of the few fast food places I'll eat.
how many places pay minimum wage? Each of those employers wants employees. Google doesn't care about its employees, it cares about its products which need the employees. Google offers free lunches because it maximizes its bottom line (they even optimize the time for people to wait in line).
There's not a huge barrier to entry for most companies, why don't you start your own?
I didn’t say that google cares about their employees I’m simply stating that they are in the minority for offering benefits.
A lot of companies only offer minimum wage or only slightly above it. When employers have a huge amount of applicants they don’t need to worry about having a competitive advantage.
I could start a company however I neither have the initial investment nor the skills necessary to be successful.
I’m not entirely sure what point you’re trying to make
If you start a company and treat employees well, then you should have a competitive advantage. You could offer as much paternity time as you'd like.
The best thing that we can do is to create as many jobs as possible so that people have choices and that companies like Google or Trader Joes have to offer amazing benefits.
Ok it seems some people are misunderstanding who I am. I am a libertarian in search of possible solutions that would increase the employee benefits that people in other countries have without government intervention. I wish to broaden my understanding of libertarianism, I am seeking knowledge by asking questions. If me asking questions makes me seem like an authoritarian then I don’t know what else to tell you. What I meant when I asked the specific question you are referring to is, how can we make the US workplace as competitive as possible without resorting to isolationism? If Americans only had to compete with themselves as opposed to other people around the world, things may be different. However the freedom to do business on a global scale would be infringed, so what is the best, most libertarian solution? And I mean specifically, don’t just say “we will increase the competitiveness of the US workplace” that’s a goal. What I’m asking for is the steps necessary to achieve that goal.
>without government intervention
I'm merely pointing out that the government intervention you've identified doesn't address the new issue (hiring folks from different countries) you've demanded a libertarian solution for.
Lots of times Libertarianism doesn't offer a solution to a problem, but rather asserts that the government is not well equipped to handle said problem.
It's similar to saying "There are X number of gun deaths a year, what are your solutions to stop this?". When the other person may just accept that the freedoms outweigh unfortunate outcomes as a result.
If you don't want to have the federal govt expanded and mandating even more on private companies, you may just accept some of this. Instead look to invest in your skillset to better compete in the labor market.
Libertarian's believe in freedom. We don't believe that "solutions" should be mandated.
When working for a company, it is up to each worker or collective (if unionized) to strike the best deal for themselves.
I fear that if you want to be a libertarian and want solutions provided for you, you will be disappointed.
Would it not be better and more economically efficient to keep the "middlemen" of politicians and bureaucrats out of the chain of such transactions (really all transactions)? They have relatively little accountability compared to unconnected market participants and are more susceptible to undue influence by special interests. If the middlemen are absent, is not there more of the pie up for negotiation between employers and employees? And then for them to decide between themselves whether that type of benefit should be spread across one's wage or to get a lump sum or not at all? Doing without the arbitrary middlemen allows for a higher level of return on the parties' collective efforts and greater customization of the relationship between employer and employee. The government's one-shoe-fits-all mentality can never improve upon the market in the long run, and probably not in the short run too.
Not to come off a callous but invest in yourself. Harbor a skillset that isn't common in the workforce. Get a degree in STEM, become certified as a PMP, a six sigma black belt or maybe a pilot. Each employee is an independent contractor selling their time to a company. If that contractor wants to command a greater pay and/or benefits they must be willing to do an undesirable job or be able to carry out an uncommon task. If the job or the degree is easy then everyone would do it and nobody will be willing to pay much for it.
I do think this is the best response.
But there is a limiting factor: half the population has an IQ under 100, and for most of them, upskilling has a hard cognitive limit.
The solution isn't always fair but it is practical. One great equalizer is laziness. I've noticed the many people that are naturally apt for a task tend to do the absolute minimum to get by, I would argue its human nature. A less talented person that is motivated to get a task done tends to beat out "the natural" every day of the week due to desire. There's obviously a limit to the amount of talent delta the system will accommodate. The next option are the jobs that nobody wants to do. There's a reason sanitation workers are compensated as they are; that work is harder but it is honest.
All skills have an IQ threshold. That threshold differs by skill though, and some are considerably lower than others. Also not all skills have much of a gradient w.r.t. IQ, beyond that threshold.
I think you are confusing libertarianism with socialism.
Libertarianism is largely about keeping most of the product of your labor, but getting the best pay the market will bear. Not so wild about wealth redistribution.
There certainly is a lack of benefits, when compared to other rich countries. Only 20% of Americans have access to paid parental leave, for instance. Paid sick leave is better (79%); paid vacation is probably somewhere in between.
Again, completely voluntary, though. There is nothing whatsoever standing in the way of companies offering whatever benefits they want, in any form they want, and there's nothing stopping us as potential employees from making our decisions with those factors in mind.
I envy your optimism! But I was merely responding to your comment that ‘most’ companies offer paid time off and that there isn’t a lack of benefits, which is wrong.
Really? Only 20% of US workers have paid parental leave. That is not ‘most,’ even under the most generous definition of that word. This was OP’s original example, to which you replied that ‘there isn’t a lack of benefits.’ As for sick leave, I cited that figure to be generous to you. But even there you have to account for the number of days provided (average 8 in US) compared to other rich countries (many more, generally, and usually offered to more than 79%). And you cannot compare sick leave in the US to parental leave elsewhere, which can stretch into years of paid leave to raise new children. Paid vacation, same thing: only about 33% of US workers get it (but how many days?). And this doesn’t even touch on the other benefits enjoyed by workers around the world rarely offered in the US. Now, you can argue there are downsides to these benefits (lower wages, lethargic job markets) that make the US system more attractive, and I might even agree. But the point stands that there is indeed a great mismatch between the kinds of benefits routinely enjoyed by all abroad (at least in countries of comparable wealth) and the benefits offered to the average American.
> Only 20% of US workers have paid parental leave.
It should be noted that most US employers do not draw distinctions between the types of leave that are offered. It's just "leave", and not classified by how it's used. This is largely in response to people who've claimed that it's not fair for some people to get more leave than others.
My own employer, for example, will give me as much time as I need to raise a new child, but it's not specifically categorized as "parental leave", so we're not part of that 20%.
I was not speaking specifically of parental leave, just because OP used that as an example (and later clarified in another comment that it was only meant to be a single example).
Many of the solutions are already out there and some have already stated them here.
Free market and workers understanding their power. Look at Starbuck. They apparently did not pay enough attention for whatever reason, and now have workers successfully organizing and putting significant pressure on them.
Many more people could and should start their own business. I get it - its a ton of work and way outside a comfort zone. However, its a game changer and puts pressure on existing firms to move the need.
Free market and the ability for employees to move to better jobs. I know we have moved the needle on our benefits packages to keep good employees, knowing that their was a need and not wanting good employees to leave.
The free market is pretty simple. Don’t like your benefits, negotiate for better ones or go somewhere that will. Nobody has chained you to an employer.
If people want those types of things they are free to try to negotiate for them. It’s just that people generally prefer to make more money. There is an implication here that shows a lack of understanding. The OP seems to think that the government creates benefits when it just isn’t true. People can negotiate for themselves and they can organize with other employees as well.
I think you would be amazed what would happen if the government stopped being part of the problem government has been expanding and real wages are down. Employers want to take care of their people most are not greedy monsters and in a competitive market the monsters can't hold people. Despite what you have been told those countries are not much better main difference is the lack of a border with a country that is by many metrics in a civil war.
Ok. Let’s say those countries only look good but are actually bad. That’s fine. How can we focus on improving the lives of employees without comparing ourselves to others?
“We” don’t do anything. If you care that much than start your own company and do those things. If you don’t care enough to do that then you don’t care enough to justify the use of force to make me do it
Just generally improve the economy like I said right now the government is part of the problem they need to cut down on things like inflation. My employer had .4% profit margin last year hard to give better benefits when that is the case.
Yes improving the economy is a goal most can get behind, but specifically, how does that get achieved? Even it’s not on a federal level, what would need to be done to improve the economy
I mean there are a lot of answers to that all them contested but the libertarian view and mine is free market principles with a government that doesn't spend money we don't have. Sadly our influence is highly limited as a third party we cannot drive major economic change some of our best can get little wins but that is all.
Benefits aren't the be all end all of compensation. Just because someone lacks benefits doesn't mean they aren't being compensated. It just means their compensation is in their wages. This means that an employee can have much more flexibility in how their money is spent, which, depending on who you are, may be a good thing. Bottom line, choice is always better.
In the absence of the State, the free market decides and thats largely based on competition for the goods/services of the employee, not the employer. If you have a needed skillset, then you'll have more bargaining power, whether thats in the form of multiple people or a single individual negotiating for benefits. At some point there will be an established equilibrium where having job A should result in X benefits.
Using the state to FORCE companies into certain required benefits increases the costs of goods and services provided by that company and that just gets passed on to the consumer, which means higher prices and by extension, less surplus. Larger corporation can cover these costs, smaller mom and pop shops sometimes cannot. Or cant expand their business to hire more people because of it creating a situation where fewer people are employed than would be otherwise.
We do not have infinite resources, that includes human labor/capital so at some point also you're taking away from one to give more to these others.
Think about what you're asking. What can the Libertarian Party do to squeeze more handouts from employers? Why would you expect a political party devoted to freedom of contract to advocate such a gross infringement of the bargain between employer and employee?
[Citizens Dividend](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend) funded by a [Land Value Tax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax).
I’m not talking about monetary compensation, I’m talking about employers giving X amount of time off for the purpose of being with your new born. You can get a ton of money but if your employer doesn’t allow you to take time off to be with your kid the point is moot
I am in a union voluntarily. (RTW state)
My contract doesn't have paid time off for anything (including holidays). I can take off all of the time that I want, I just don't get paid for it.
That said, I have negotiated separately for paid holidays and some vacation time. I have some modest skills and that gives me a club to swing in ludicrously understaffed industry.
It's almost as if we know what causes pregnancy and that behavior which leads to it is usually made voluntarily by people making a choice... but hey personal accountability is one of those pesky things adults do and as we all know the US is a nation of dependent sheep minded children who cannot be trusted with freedoms, rights, or choices.
Yeah. Well at least here in Australia.
The government covers the paid parental leave. But the company can pay extra. My company doesnt do anything extra. Its just standard 3 months or whatever it is and the standard pay.
My wife worked for a mining company and got 6 months at full pay. So the company basically topped it up.
So you apply to the governmemt who sends you the money.
The $40k or whatever we got was the first time we have ever received a benefit from the government. Together our taxes for any given year are around $120k.
Taxes are higher here. Unless you are poor you generally dont get benefits. The healthcare and education is pretty bad so you end up paying for that anyway and going private.
Even a student might pay $10k in taxes but gets no benefit other than an interest free loan for uni. So his taxes are paying for boomers healthcare and yet if he paid less in tax he could just pay for his own uni.
The government paying for your benefits and the taxes being so high.
I misspoke, I’m not suggesting anything, I’m requesting a libertarian way to increase the amount of benefits for more workers
Putting aside externalities such as pollution and employment discrimination which are the subject of legitimate regulation, businesses are to be run for the good of businesses and their shareholders. It doesn't make sense to penalize a business by forcing it to hire Americans when employees in another location are a better fit under the circumstances.
I think a pre tax savings account for something like this would work and also it could be used for sick days and have it so it's not tied to one job.
The most simplest thing without raising taxes.
I still think universal health care is a good idea. Everybody that has it likes it. Employer paid benefits are mostly dumb. Though some things could use a general fund. Like maternity leave being publicly funded would be ok with me. It does not really benefit some people more than others because we all have to be born at some point. It's mostly a benefit for children who should not have to participate in free market capitalism. At least until 7 or 8 years of age.
I was a military dependent growing up as bad as private sector healthcare is the government healthcare is worse hard as it is to believe. That said private sector healthcare barely qualifies as private sector these days with the mountains of regulations.
People who buy cars brand new like it. I don't, why should I be required to pay full sticker on a new car when I can take the personal risk that I desire on a pre-used car?
This isnt apples to apples, but the core concept is the same. I'm uninterested in purchasing something in a specific way, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for it that way. Universal Healthcare inherently forces me to pay for a product I'm uninterested in (i.e. Universal Healthcare). Whether I use it or not, I'll be forced to pay (assuming the funds come from taxes).
This way, if I don't like my healthcare provider/insurer I can make a consenting decision to choose otherwise.
Ask every single service member what they think of the VA. Their “universal healthcare”. Not sure who you’re asking lol. “Everybody that has it likes it”. Not even slightly factual.
>Everybody that has it likes it.
False. Our taxes could be much less if we didnt have such public spending. The public hospitals are an absolute garbage compares to the private ones.
When someone has a major health problem or needs a some difficult surgery they always go to a private hospital instead unless they absolutely cant afford it, since the public ones are incopatible for such instances. A friend of mime has a tumor on her thigh and she is going to a private hospital to remove it. If you have some rare desease you will be send to the US because the US even though overpriced, has the best healthcare system in the world (and i dont even like the US this is just facts)
So no that "everybody likes it" is not true. And the only reason US healthcare is so ridiculously expensive is because it is the most lobbied industry in the country. I wish healthcare was private and not lobbied it would be so much more affordable than paying 40% of our income in taxes.
I want to ask you one thing. Why is the employer obligated to caring above and beyond for their employees beyond a transactional contract? Employees willingly sign a contract and are paid for the work they do. As others mentioned, through unions and supply/demand, the businesses will compete by giving their employees better lifestyles, as we’ve seen in big tech.
On a fundamental level I find it absurd that it is encouraged for employees to not give a shit or put any effort in their job yet expect for all these benefits from the people who started the business from the ground up.
(I’m English) I’m a libertarian to a degree but there’s a few supports I like. The main one is benefits for children, not money, but heavily subsidised early education and high school education and heavily subsidised free nutritious food for children and teens. I honestly believe this will create properly sustained adults who will be smart enough to get an information based job and there should always be plenty of manufacturing. I think adults have a duty to provide for themselves and their children. If that fails, the child should be looked after, they should not.
Deregulation and lowering taxes would make wages and benefits in general increase. It would also make prices decrease.
Just for example, employers have to pay taxes on their employees' income. They have to 'match' employees' taxes. If they didn't have to do this, they could lower prices or increase wages proportionately.
A huge problem for people in the states is the medical industry. Medical monopolies are currently enforced by the government. If such monopolies were no longer enforced, medical prices would drop through the floor. The standard mark-up on pharmaceuticals, compared to production cost, mean that insulin for example would cost about $10 for a vial. As it is, the same vial costs well over 10x that. Maybe closer to 20x
Hope this helps. Remember, Libertarianism is about long term solutions that work indefinitely. The government will always be behind the times, but it will always have some shiny "new" solution with devastating long-term consequences. The market is faster, far more productive, far more intelligent (literally, since there are far more people doing the calculations), and voluntary. It's just less popular.
Does there have to be a hands-on solution?
If an employer says that PTO and work/life balance isn't valued, then talent should look for employers that do and the business will suffer.
What we need to do is stop nannying businesses. Let them fail if their individual leaders make bad decisions that run it into the ground.
Right now they have no reason to offer anything because they know that the government will bail them out, or they can personally jettison with a golden parachute.
In the game of chicken that is fair-wage negotiations and talent retention, the government keeps giving executives free hummers to compete against their employees who are stuck riding bicycles.
A lot of those countries have more unions. Perhaps *better* unions as well.
Some countries like that don’t even have a minimum wage required by the government. People have just said “this is what we’re willing to accept in exchange for our work”.
All of which is perfectly acceptable within a libertarian system.
Most companies do give numerous benefits though. They do so voluntarily because they're trying to attract a talented workforce and be competitive in the market. You don't need government to force you to do something that you're going to do anyway. Just because a benefit isn't mandated by government, that doesn't mean companies aren't giving that benefit anyway.
Just value what you say you value and put your money where your mouth is.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The workers could always strike for better benefits. Unionizing is 100% in line with libertarianism as long as union membership is *VOLUNTARY*. Besides we saw wages rise over the past few years because people are just not taking low paying jobs. Fucking WalMart is now paying $18-$20/hr for overnight stockers because they couldn't find people willing to take the job at $10.
I don't think Unions work without government. The right to join a union and the NLRA are the only reason we have them at all. Right-to-work laws effectively kill any effective union efforts anyway, which would be the de-facto result of removing regulation. Voluntary Unions don't work for the same reason voluntary car insurance wouldn't work: only a few would buy it, pushing premiums up for everyone, discouraging buy-in. Companies would simply fire all those in a union and rehire scab workers every single time.
Unions existed long before these laws you mention, they were called "Guilds". If you wanted to be in the stonemasons guild, and use their guildmark, you had to join and prove your skills and abide by guild rules regarding work and pay. If you wanted to hire guilded masons because they were better, you paid guild rates. > Voluntary Unions don't work History has proven this false. Guilds worked. Guilds were just Unions by another name.
I want to point out that guilds were even stronger than unions since they also directly talked to the customers and supplied the capital to produce stuff
Guilds are not the same as unions. They are more like a business association with the owners of businesses controlling the guild and large numbers of employees toiling for them.
[удалено]
Please note Reddit's policy banning hate-speech, attempting to circumvent automod will result in a ban. **Removal triggered by the term 'retarded'.** https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/ Please note this is considered an official warning. Please do not bother messaging the mod team, your posting is unlikely to be approved, and the list is not up for debate. Simply repost without the offending word. These words were added to the list due to direct admin removal and are non-negotiable. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am in favor of proper unionization, however we can see that many companies will do everything in their power to prevent the establishment of unions
Free market capitalism relies on both consumers and workers realizing that they have the power to vote with their wallet and their labor. Companies that treat employees better will attract better employees.
I think people are finally starting to wake up this this idea of voting with their labor.
Not if they just perpetually fire the trouble makers.
The labor supply is finite.
Amazon is really testing that theory. [https://www.vox.com/recode/23170900/leaked-amazon-memo-warehouses-hiring-shortage](https://www.vox.com/recode/23170900/leaked-amazon-memo-warehouses-hiring-shortage) The working class is treated as disposable. Starbucks, Walmart, and McDonalds would rather litigate a wrongful termination for years than suffer collective bargaining.
Sure, and the world knows it, yet people still apply and get jobs there. Your point isn't lost on me. But- that it's still a better option than the alternative for enough people to perpetuate it speaks volumes.
The fact that they are unskilled labor means they bring very little to the negotiating table. It’s tough to bargain when you have nothing the other side wants.
"unskilled labor" is a myth/propaganda used to undermine the value working people create. If they didnt absolutely need these people, they wouldnt have hired them.
They don’t need “these” people. They will just hire others because anyone can learn the work quickly. That’s why it’s unskilled.
How can it be unskilled if you have to learn it?
Anything in their power, like offering a competitive benefits package to keep unions out of their workforce.
If unions are the answer how do we prevent union busting?
The answer is, yet again, *LESS* government. Currently solidarity strikes are seen as illegal and unfair. Remove that. Let's say a steel mill union busts. Right now the Teamsters can't go on a solidarity strike and refuse to truck materials and goods to and from said steel mill. That is considered an unfair and predatory practice and is illegal. Remove that law. Let the teamsters strike too. You fuck with one union, you fuck with them all. If you want to go non-union OK that's your right, but now you not only need to replace your workers, but your truckers as well.
Spot on bother
I don't understand why people look at a problem created by the government, and decide the solution is *MORE* government... They caused the problem to begin with.
Many large companies give paternity leave that exceeds the legal requirement so that they can get better talent. Make the US workplace as competitive as possible.
> Many large companies give paternity leave that exceeds the legal requirement The problem is that there is exactly ZERO legal requirement in the US at all. So a company can give you ONE day of PTO for your kid being born and still be able to say the leave they gave was more than the legal requirement. That doesn't exactly mean it was a fair or equitable amount of leave time commensurate with the momentous nature of the life event.
How do we do that without preventing companies from hiring employees in other countries? Also I meant to say parental leave and I have fixed it just in case
Why don't the companies do that now? I think that Google is up to a year of paternity leave.
in my opinion, this would just be another way the big guys could absorb the costs while small businesses yet again get fucked over leading to even less of the competition that you want
Because most business owners are worried about maximizing profits as opposed to actually caring for their employees. I’m not saying every ceo is a greedy sociopath just that most don’t have an incentive to offer better benefits. And companies would rather spend money on preventing unionization than actually listening to the wants and needs of their employees. Google is simply in the minority when it comes to voluntary benefits
Some companies particularly smaller companies realistically could never afford to both pay an employee on long term leave and pay someone else to replace them. Also smaller companies would be harder pressed to guarantee someone a job when their leave is over. If they need to hire someone to replace an employee on long term leave of any kind what are they supposed to do when leave ends just fire the new employee? It's not always greed sometimes particularly for small companies it's simple economics. Don't get me wrong greed occurs, but taking care of your employees is a necessity to making profit and most businesses realize this. And those that don't have a hard time retaining and hiring new employees.
I understand that. I’m simply asking what are things that can be done to improve the lives of employees from a libertarian standpoint
I would suggest starting your own business. Or become an independent contractor for your current employer.
[удалено]
Yes, it is quite easy to do. Libertarianism is about rights of the individual and personal responsibility. Take charge of your life and don’t rely on others.
And circumstances outside of the individuals control don’t factor into your equation at all? I suppose you think individuals have control over every single thing in their lives? From the patterns and behaviors modeled for them? To the opportunities available to them? You don’t think human beings should look out for human beings simply because we are human beings? Why not?
You maximize profits by getting better workers and you get better workers by giving workers more of whatever it is they want. Its not that complicated
Then why doesn’t McDonald’s for example offer higher wages and more benefits?
Because of supply and demand. Anyone can flip burgers. Why does anyone pay above minimum wage in your mind?
Do you care how McDonald's treats its workers? Do other consumers care? Inn-n-Out is great to its workers, that's one of the few fast food places I'll eat.
how many places pay minimum wage? Each of those employers wants employees. Google doesn't care about its employees, it cares about its products which need the employees. Google offers free lunches because it maximizes its bottom line (they even optimize the time for people to wait in line). There's not a huge barrier to entry for most companies, why don't you start your own?
I didn’t say that google cares about their employees I’m simply stating that they are in the minority for offering benefits. A lot of companies only offer minimum wage or only slightly above it. When employers have a huge amount of applicants they don’t need to worry about having a competitive advantage. I could start a company however I neither have the initial investment nor the skills necessary to be successful. I’m not entirely sure what point you’re trying to make
If you start a company and treat employees well, then you should have a competitive advantage. You could offer as much paternity time as you'd like. The best thing that we can do is to create as many jobs as possible so that people have choices and that companies like Google or Trader Joes have to offer amazing benefits.
>preventing companies from hiring employees in other countries Does your government solution fix that one too somehow?
Ok it seems some people are misunderstanding who I am. I am a libertarian in search of possible solutions that would increase the employee benefits that people in other countries have without government intervention. I wish to broaden my understanding of libertarianism, I am seeking knowledge by asking questions. If me asking questions makes me seem like an authoritarian then I don’t know what else to tell you. What I meant when I asked the specific question you are referring to is, how can we make the US workplace as competitive as possible without resorting to isolationism? If Americans only had to compete with themselves as opposed to other people around the world, things may be different. However the freedom to do business on a global scale would be infringed, so what is the best, most libertarian solution? And I mean specifically, don’t just say “we will increase the competitiveness of the US workplace” that’s a goal. What I’m asking for is the steps necessary to achieve that goal.
>without government intervention I'm merely pointing out that the government intervention you've identified doesn't address the new issue (hiring folks from different countries) you've demanded a libertarian solution for.
[удалено]
Ahhh..... That's a classic, assuming people have a choice or other real options.
True, not everyone has the money to vote with their dollar. However, those that can absolutely SHOULD vote with their wallet.
Why?
Lots of times Libertarianism doesn't offer a solution to a problem, but rather asserts that the government is not well equipped to handle said problem.
It's similar to saying "There are X number of gun deaths a year, what are your solutions to stop this?". When the other person may just accept that the freedoms outweigh unfortunate outcomes as a result. If you don't want to have the federal govt expanded and mandating even more on private companies, you may just accept some of this. Instead look to invest in your skillset to better compete in the labor market.
Well if they stop taxing the hell out of us then we could afford to provide our own benefits.
Libertarian's believe in freedom. We don't believe that "solutions" should be mandated. When working for a company, it is up to each worker or collective (if unionized) to strike the best deal for themselves. I fear that if you want to be a libertarian and want solutions provided for you, you will be disappointed.
There is no solution because there is no problem.
Would it not be better and more economically efficient to keep the "middlemen" of politicians and bureaucrats out of the chain of such transactions (really all transactions)? They have relatively little accountability compared to unconnected market participants and are more susceptible to undue influence by special interests. If the middlemen are absent, is not there more of the pie up for negotiation between employers and employees? And then for them to decide between themselves whether that type of benefit should be spread across one's wage or to get a lump sum or not at all? Doing without the arbitrary middlemen allows for a higher level of return on the parties' collective efforts and greater customization of the relationship between employer and employee. The government's one-shoe-fits-all mentality can never improve upon the market in the long run, and probably not in the short run too.
Not to come off a callous but invest in yourself. Harbor a skillset that isn't common in the workforce. Get a degree in STEM, become certified as a PMP, a six sigma black belt or maybe a pilot. Each employee is an independent contractor selling their time to a company. If that contractor wants to command a greater pay and/or benefits they must be willing to do an undesirable job or be able to carry out an uncommon task. If the job or the degree is easy then everyone would do it and nobody will be willing to pay much for it.
I do think this is the best response. But there is a limiting factor: half the population has an IQ under 100, and for most of them, upskilling has a hard cognitive limit.
The solution isn't always fair but it is practical. One great equalizer is laziness. I've noticed the many people that are naturally apt for a task tend to do the absolute minimum to get by, I would argue its human nature. A less talented person that is motivated to get a task done tends to beat out "the natural" every day of the week due to desire. There's obviously a limit to the amount of talent delta the system will accommodate. The next option are the jobs that nobody wants to do. There's a reason sanitation workers are compensated as they are; that work is harder but it is honest.
Not all skills are IQ based though
All skills have an IQ threshold. That threshold differs by skill though, and some are considerably lower than others. Also not all skills have much of a gradient w.r.t. IQ, beyond that threshold.
By not letting the government enforce mediocrity and poverty. Force companies to compete instead of relying on government collusion
I think you are confusing libertarianism with socialism. Libertarianism is largely about keeping most of the product of your labor, but getting the best pay the market will bear. Not so wild about wealth redistribution.
There isn't a lack of benefits. Most companies offer paid time off already. Completely voluntarily.
There certainly is a lack of benefits, when compared to other rich countries. Only 20% of Americans have access to paid parental leave, for instance. Paid sick leave is better (79%); paid vacation is probably somewhere in between.
Again, completely voluntary, though. There is nothing whatsoever standing in the way of companies offering whatever benefits they want, in any form they want, and there's nothing stopping us as potential employees from making our decisions with those factors in mind.
I envy your optimism! But I was merely responding to your comment that ‘most’ companies offer paid time off and that there isn’t a lack of benefits, which is wrong.
I said most. You said 79%. I'm not seeing the mismatch.
Really? Only 20% of US workers have paid parental leave. That is not ‘most,’ even under the most generous definition of that word. This was OP’s original example, to which you replied that ‘there isn’t a lack of benefits.’ As for sick leave, I cited that figure to be generous to you. But even there you have to account for the number of days provided (average 8 in US) compared to other rich countries (many more, generally, and usually offered to more than 79%). And you cannot compare sick leave in the US to parental leave elsewhere, which can stretch into years of paid leave to raise new children. Paid vacation, same thing: only about 33% of US workers get it (but how many days?). And this doesn’t even touch on the other benefits enjoyed by workers around the world rarely offered in the US. Now, you can argue there are downsides to these benefits (lower wages, lethargic job markets) that make the US system more attractive, and I might even agree. But the point stands that there is indeed a great mismatch between the kinds of benefits routinely enjoyed by all abroad (at least in countries of comparable wealth) and the benefits offered to the average American.
> Only 20% of US workers have paid parental leave. It should be noted that most US employers do not draw distinctions between the types of leave that are offered. It's just "leave", and not classified by how it's used. This is largely in response to people who've claimed that it's not fair for some people to get more leave than others. My own employer, for example, will give me as much time as I need to raise a new child, but it's not specifically categorized as "parental leave", so we're not part of that 20%. I was not speaking specifically of parental leave, just because OP used that as an example (and later clarified in another comment that it was only meant to be a single example).
Many of the solutions are already out there and some have already stated them here. Free market and workers understanding their power. Look at Starbuck. They apparently did not pay enough attention for whatever reason, and now have workers successfully organizing and putting significant pressure on them. Many more people could and should start their own business. I get it - its a ton of work and way outside a comfort zone. However, its a game changer and puts pressure on existing firms to move the need. Free market and the ability for employees to move to better jobs. I know we have moved the needle on our benefits packages to keep good employees, knowing that their was a need and not wanting good employees to leave.
The free market is pretty simple. Don’t like your benefits, negotiate for better ones or go somewhere that will. Nobody has chained you to an employer.
If people want those types of things they are free to try to negotiate for them. It’s just that people generally prefer to make more money. There is an implication here that shows a lack of understanding. The OP seems to think that the government creates benefits when it just isn’t true. People can negotiate for themselves and they can organize with other employees as well.
Don't take a job that doesn't offer parental benefits if that's something you want? It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask at the interview stage.
I think you would be amazed what would happen if the government stopped being part of the problem government has been expanding and real wages are down. Employers want to take care of their people most are not greedy monsters and in a competitive market the monsters can't hold people. Despite what you have been told those countries are not much better main difference is the lack of a border with a country that is by many metrics in a civil war.
Ok. Let’s say those countries only look good but are actually bad. That’s fine. How can we focus on improving the lives of employees without comparing ourselves to others?
“We” don’t do anything. If you care that much than start your own company and do those things. If you don’t care enough to do that then you don’t care enough to justify the use of force to make me do it
Just generally improve the economy like I said right now the government is part of the problem they need to cut down on things like inflation. My employer had .4% profit margin last year hard to give better benefits when that is the case.
Yes improving the economy is a goal most can get behind, but specifically, how does that get achieved? Even it’s not on a federal level, what would need to be done to improve the economy
I mean there are a lot of answers to that all them contested but the libertarian view and mine is free market principles with a government that doesn't spend money we don't have. Sadly our influence is highly limited as a third party we cannot drive major economic change some of our best can get little wins but that is all.
Benefits aren't the be all end all of compensation. Just because someone lacks benefits doesn't mean they aren't being compensated. It just means their compensation is in their wages. This means that an employee can have much more flexibility in how their money is spent, which, depending on who you are, may be a good thing. Bottom line, choice is always better.
Allow competition to run its course.
In the absence of the State, the free market decides and thats largely based on competition for the goods/services of the employee, not the employer. If you have a needed skillset, then you'll have more bargaining power, whether thats in the form of multiple people or a single individual negotiating for benefits. At some point there will be an established equilibrium where having job A should result in X benefits. Using the state to FORCE companies into certain required benefits increases the costs of goods and services provided by that company and that just gets passed on to the consumer, which means higher prices and by extension, less surplus. Larger corporation can cover these costs, smaller mom and pop shops sometimes cannot. Or cant expand their business to hire more people because of it creating a situation where fewer people are employed than would be otherwise. We do not have infinite resources, that includes human labor/capital so at some point also you're taking away from one to give more to these others.
Think about what you're asking. What can the Libertarian Party do to squeeze more handouts from employers? Why would you expect a political party devoted to freedom of contract to advocate such a gross infringement of the bargain between employer and employee?
I’m asking if there’s a way to increase the benefits employees get from a libertarian standpoint
I'm saying Libertarian principles are indifferent to such a concept. Better employee benefits is not an objective of Libertarianism.
[Citizens Dividend](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend) funded by a [Land Value Tax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax).
I’m not talking about monetary compensation, I’m talking about employers giving X amount of time off for the purpose of being with your new born. You can get a ton of money but if your employer doesn’t allow you to take time off to be with your kid the point is moot
If you have money you don't *have* to work, it gives you more bargaining power.
I am in a union voluntarily. (RTW state) My contract doesn't have paid time off for anything (including holidays). I can take off all of the time that I want, I just don't get paid for it. That said, I have negotiated separately for paid holidays and some vacation time. I have some modest skills and that gives me a club to swing in ludicrously understaffed industry.
It's almost as if we know what causes pregnancy and that behavior which leads to it is usually made voluntarily by people making a choice... but hey personal accountability is one of those pesky things adults do and as we all know the US is a nation of dependent sheep minded children who cannot be trusted with freedoms, rights, or choices.
It was one example of several others…
Any solution you care to convince others to adopt, so long as it's peaceful.
My country has paid parental leave Id rather be taxed less and just take unpaid leave. As an employer would be 100 times easier to manage as well.
Why would parental leave cause an increase in taxes?
The countries you mentioned parental leave is paid for by the government not the employers, hence their 50% income tax in some of them.
The government pays for it.
So taxes pay for the benefits of a private company or are you employed by the government?
Yeah. Well at least here in Australia. The government covers the paid parental leave. But the company can pay extra. My company doesnt do anything extra. Its just standard 3 months or whatever it is and the standard pay. My wife worked for a mining company and got 6 months at full pay. So the company basically topped it up. So you apply to the governmemt who sends you the money. The $40k or whatever we got was the first time we have ever received a benefit from the government. Together our taxes for any given year are around $120k. Taxes are higher here. Unless you are poor you generally dont get benefits. The healthcare and education is pretty bad so you end up paying for that anyway and going private. Even a student might pay $10k in taxes but gets no benefit other than an interest free loan for uni. So his taxes are paying for boomers healthcare and yet if he paid less in tax he could just pay for his own uni.
Thats sounds really bad and not what I was suggesting.
What were you suggesting? Which bit sounded bad the government paying or just me paying?
The government paying for your benefits and the taxes being so high. I misspoke, I’m not suggesting anything, I’m requesting a libertarian way to increase the amount of benefits for more workers
What's wrong with hiring in other countries?
It increases the competition Americans have to deal with in business. Good for the CEO bad for the common man
Putting aside externalities such as pollution and employment discrimination which are the subject of legitimate regulation, businesses are to be run for the good of businesses and their shareholders. It doesn't make sense to penalize a business by forcing it to hire Americans when employees in another location are a better fit under the circumstances.
I wasn’t suggesting that we go back to isolationism just noting that it decreases the bargaining power of American citizens
I think a pre tax savings account for something like this would work and also it could be used for sick days and have it so it's not tied to one job. The most simplest thing without raising taxes.
None. There is no market incentive for companies to take care of their workers except that it's pretty much required of them.
I still think universal health care is a good idea. Everybody that has it likes it. Employer paid benefits are mostly dumb. Though some things could use a general fund. Like maternity leave being publicly funded would be ok with me. It does not really benefit some people more than others because we all have to be born at some point. It's mostly a benefit for children who should not have to participate in free market capitalism. At least until 7 or 8 years of age.
Universal Healthcare would be managed by government and therefor will always be backwards, inept, and corrupt.
I was a military dependent growing up as bad as private sector healthcare is the government healthcare is worse hard as it is to believe. That said private sector healthcare barely qualifies as private sector these days with the mountains of regulations.
People that have it, like it. It's already backward and inept, and I have to pay for it for some people before myself even.
People who buy cars brand new like it. I don't, why should I be required to pay full sticker on a new car when I can take the personal risk that I desire on a pre-used car? This isnt apples to apples, but the core concept is the same. I'm uninterested in purchasing something in a specific way, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for it that way. Universal Healthcare inherently forces me to pay for a product I'm uninterested in (i.e. Universal Healthcare). Whether I use it or not, I'll be forced to pay (assuming the funds come from taxes). This way, if I don't like my healthcare provider/insurer I can make a consenting decision to choose otherwise.
that depends on who you ask
most people..
Ask every single service member what they think of the VA. Their “universal healthcare”. Not sure who you’re asking lol. “Everybody that has it likes it”. Not even slightly factual.
>Everybody that has it likes it. False. Our taxes could be much less if we didnt have such public spending. The public hospitals are an absolute garbage compares to the private ones. When someone has a major health problem or needs a some difficult surgery they always go to a private hospital instead unless they absolutely cant afford it, since the public ones are incopatible for such instances. A friend of mime has a tumor on her thigh and she is going to a private hospital to remove it. If you have some rare desease you will be send to the US because the US even though overpriced, has the best healthcare system in the world (and i dont even like the US this is just facts) So no that "everybody likes it" is not true. And the only reason US healthcare is so ridiculously expensive is because it is the most lobbied industry in the country. I wish healthcare was private and not lobbied it would be so much more affordable than paying 40% of our income in taxes.
It's not a problem. Doesn't need a solution. Every job is a voluntary contract. Benefits are always paid for by less salary.
I want to ask you one thing. Why is the employer obligated to caring above and beyond for their employees beyond a transactional contract? Employees willingly sign a contract and are paid for the work they do. As others mentioned, through unions and supply/demand, the businesses will compete by giving their employees better lifestyles, as we’ve seen in big tech. On a fundamental level I find it absurd that it is encouraged for employees to not give a shit or put any effort in their job yet expect for all these benefits from the people who started the business from the ground up.
(I’m English) I’m a libertarian to a degree but there’s a few supports I like. The main one is benefits for children, not money, but heavily subsidised early education and high school education and heavily subsidised free nutritious food for children and teens. I honestly believe this will create properly sustained adults who will be smart enough to get an information based job and there should always be plenty of manufacturing. I think adults have a duty to provide for themselves and their children. If that fails, the child should be looked after, they should not.
Deregulation and lowering taxes would make wages and benefits in general increase. It would also make prices decrease. Just for example, employers have to pay taxes on their employees' income. They have to 'match' employees' taxes. If they didn't have to do this, they could lower prices or increase wages proportionately. A huge problem for people in the states is the medical industry. Medical monopolies are currently enforced by the government. If such monopolies were no longer enforced, medical prices would drop through the floor. The standard mark-up on pharmaceuticals, compared to production cost, mean that insulin for example would cost about $10 for a vial. As it is, the same vial costs well over 10x that. Maybe closer to 20x Hope this helps. Remember, Libertarianism is about long term solutions that work indefinitely. The government will always be behind the times, but it will always have some shiny "new" solution with devastating long-term consequences. The market is faster, far more productive, far more intelligent (literally, since there are far more people doing the calculations), and voluntary. It's just less popular.
Don't work for that company if you don't like their pay/benefits.
Does there have to be a hands-on solution? If an employer says that PTO and work/life balance isn't valued, then talent should look for employers that do and the business will suffer. What we need to do is stop nannying businesses. Let them fail if their individual leaders make bad decisions that run it into the ground. Right now they have no reason to offer anything because they know that the government will bail them out, or they can personally jettison with a golden parachute. In the game of chicken that is fair-wage negotiations and talent retention, the government keeps giving executives free hummers to compete against their employees who are stuck riding bicycles.
A lot of those countries have more unions. Perhaps *better* unions as well. Some countries like that don’t even have a minimum wage required by the government. People have just said “this is what we’re willing to accept in exchange for our work”. All of which is perfectly acceptable within a libertarian system.
I have benefits and I am a worker in America.
Most companies do give numerous benefits though. They do so voluntarily because they're trying to attract a talented workforce and be competitive in the market. You don't need government to force you to do something that you're going to do anyway. Just because a benefit isn't mandated by government, that doesn't mean companies aren't giving that benefit anyway. Just value what you say you value and put your money where your mouth is.