Is it morally right to have people working for you?

[Froztwolf]

Steve Pavlina and Timothy Ferris both speak of how bad it is to be an employee as opposed to running your own enterprise through passive income.

Both of them (Mr. Ferris to a considerably larger degree) have income systems that depend on employees, either their own or somebody else's.

I believe strongly that it would be unsustainable for everyone to stop being an employee (despite what Ayn Rand says) and yet if you keep employees, surely you are benefiting of their ignorance and/or risk-aversion.

Thus my question: Knowing that being an employee is worse than running your own business, is it morally correct to have people working for you?

[Parthon]

Yes, for sure.

It's not that self-employment is "better" than employment. It's that the conditions of employment int he world create a system in which self-employment is better. It's still on a case by case basis, and in this case, most jobs suck and are unneccessary, tedious, boring, aggravating, and/or soul destroying.

A job that fits your purpose, has freedom and security and gives you an opportunity to provide real value and enrich your life as well as other people's lives, that's a good job. I would say 99.92% of jobs are not like that.

It's not a case that self-employment is better, just that if you want the freedom and opportunity to create value that so many people crave, it won't be found in a dead end job.

It's also a case that a job is a willing endeavour, although most people don't see it that way.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Froztwolf

Steve Pavlina and Timothy Ferris both speak of how bad it is to be an employee as opposed to running your own enterprise through passive income.

Both of them (Mr. Ferris to a considerably larger degree) have income systems that depend on employees, either their own or somebody else's.

I believe strongly that it would be unsustainable for everyone to stop being an employee (despite what Ayn Rand says) and yet if you keep employees, surely you are benefiting of their ignorance and/or risk-aversion.

Thus my question: Knowing that being an employee is worse than running your own business, is it morally correct to have people working for you?

I don't agree with either of them with respect to this view. Sure if your lucky enough to have some passive income you'll do fine and sure if you have a good business, but you have to understand that everything starts somewhere.

The goal is that, you have to make money in order to make a passive income that will support you, so you will still have to work till then.

This is a naive and impractical point of view. Without people supporting each other in the society or the state, the market will crash again and again. Employees are your country's backbone. Remove that and you'll loose everything progress has to offer. Example of those privilege are:

1. Medicine
2. Electricity
3. Food supply
4. Security
5. Recreation

-m.e.

[SimonaRich]

Hmm, Timothy Ferris is outsourcing everything, he does not have direct employees. He can outsource to self employed people and company owners, so they are not employees.

I thought that Steve Pavlina does not have direct employees too, but you say that he largely depends on that. How do you know that? Do you just assume that?

Personally I only outsource some of my business activities to self employed specialists, so I have no employees. I would not like to have employees exactly because of the point you made - employees are like slaves. I would not want to enslave anyone!

However, some employees really appreciate their employment, so maybe it is good for someone to fulfill this need and create employment.

[Brutha]

I think that Timothy Ferriss is rather immoral for selling mental improvement pills while being only be concerned about the marketing aspect of it while not being that much concerned with whether those pills actually help people. At least I sounded that way in the book to me.

But on your question I think it's more moral to accept the choices that other people make for their lives.
After Terry Pratchett out of memory:
You can't build a better world for other people, it would be a cage.

Especially at this time a lot of people want to have a job. There is nothing wrong with respecting their will to have a job and give one to them while at the same time telling them about maybe becoming self employed themselves.

[RT Wolf]

Like Brutha says, are you sure that employment is necessarily worse than self-employment? Check out this thread where ALG makes a case for jobs:

What are the benefits of not having a job?

Further, your question holds an implicit morality of some sort of egalitarianism. The idea that since you don't wanna do this, you shouldn't put others through it either. Fair and same for all. Think more about your idea of morality. Why is the question of morality even coming up?

[straysweeper]

Here is how I see it. If you choose to be passive, then you are providing value without doing something. That 'something' was built by other people through years of effort in order to create the ability for you to do such a thing. Modern society is built a lot on the value of those we never see. All you need to is watch an episode or two of Dirty Jobs to gain some perspective.

There is said that you run a enterprise of your personal services, weather you work for someone or not. I think Jim Rohn speaks of this, but I'm not sure where he got it from. Your boss pays you for a service, and your clients pay you for a service. In all, it comes back to work being done. There is always more to do than you can ever do.

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by magi13

I don't agree with either of them with respect to this view. Sure if your lucky enough to have some passive income you'll do fine and sure if you have a good business, but you have to understand that everything starts somewhere.

The goal is that, you have to make money in order to make a passive income that will support you, so you will still have to work till then.

This is a naive and impractical point of view. Without people supporting each other in the society or the state, the market will crash again and again. Employees are your country's backbone. Remove that and you'll loose everything progress has to offer. Example of those privilege are:

1. Medicine
2. Electricity
3. Food supply
4. Security
5. Recreation

-m.e.

I don't see how any of these require modern employment style servitude. Aside from electricity, the others are often supplied by individuals, not companies. You see a doctor for medical care. You go to a farmer for food supply. You go to a builder for a house. And you can have recreation by yourself.

We support each other by providing value. That's all it is. The problem arises when 99% of people need to be motivated to produce value through a job. There are jobs that "need to be done" and the only way to get them done is by paying someone who isn't motivated, talented or skilled enough to find work elsewhere. I would also say that almost half of all jobs are uneeded, they only arise through the complexity of our current society.

I worked as an archive officer. My job was to put old files in boxes and send them away to a warehouse, keep track of them and retrieve them went needed. Most of those files only contained paperwork that was never seen again. It was a near pointless job.

People provide value, jobs do not. The employee structure was setup in the 1800s when there were too many workers and not enough positions. I think it's time we moved to something new.

[Some Random Loser]

Hmm I suppose it comes down to whether you want someone who's a very close and integrated team member, like family, or whether you'd rather just shop for good service, pay for it, and drop it whenever you like.

The employer/employee paradigm tends to be a mediocre blend of the above two polarities, in which a lot of exploitation can take place. On one hand, it's a lot closer and more family-like than a "contract service." On the other hand, employees tend to get treated as a quantifiable commodity that can be "dumped" at any time.

I say either you put together a business family or you "buy someone's services." That way the people doing work for you know where they stand. If they're contracting, it's just a business transaction. If they join your team, it's a much more integrated effort, in which everyone is treated as part of the family.

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by Some Random Loser

Hmm I suppose it comes down to whether you want someone who's a very close and integrated team member, like family, or whether you'd rather just shop for good service, pay for it, and drop it whenever you like.

The employer/employee paradigm tends to be a mediocre blend of the above two polarities, in which a lot of exploitation can take place. On one hand, it's a lot closer and more family-like than a "contract service." On the other hand, employees tend to get treated as a quantifiable commodity that can be "dumped" at any time.

I say either you put together a business family or you "buy someone's services." That way the people doing work for you know where they stand. If they're contracting, it's just a business transaction. If they join your team, it's a much more integrated effort, in which everyone is treated as part of the family.

I agree, but I don't think it was always that way. Only recently have big corporations wanted their cake and to eat it too. By this I mean they want loyalty and satisfaction from their workers, but they arent' prepared to offer the respect and security that creates it. Right now the workforce is a mess because few people can keep a job long enough to gain the experience required to move up into positions that suit. Very few employers will train their workers and even fewer are willing to commit their own resources to providing extra value to an employer that doesn't deserve them.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Froztwolf

Thus my question: Knowing that being an employee is worse than running your own business, is it morally correct to have people working for you?

When you have any exchange of value and energy between two people, how can it be morally wrong? And who's to say that working for someone else is inherently bad?

Life is a continuum, step-by-step in an evolving direction. If you don't have a corporate boss, you still have a "boss" somewhere who dictates what they will pay you for. No matter who pays you, you still have to find something within yourself that others value if you want to make money.

[Some Random Loser]

Originally Posted by Parthon

I agree, but I don't think it was always that way. Only recently have big corporations wanted their cake and to eat it too. By this I mean they want loyalty and satisfaction from their workers, but they arent' prepared to offer the respect and security that creates it. Right now the workforce is a mess because few people can keep a job long enough to gain the experience required to move up into positions that suit. Very few employers will train their workers and even fewer are willing to commit their own resources to providing extra value to an employer that doesn't deserve them.

Yep, that's what always happens when you try to have your cake and eat it too. The cake blows up in your face. LoL

[Angela]

"Employment" is just a structure of habitual thinking. It's "normal" to live within that structure of agreeing to a contract in which one person is the employer and the other is the employee, and lots of people buy into it. Nothing wrong with that, any more than there's anything wrong with any other type of habitual thought and behavior.

And the consequences for both the employer and the employee seem too dire to me to make it worthwhile to accept the benefits of the traditional employment arrangement.

Because in addition to the written contract, there are so many unwritten agreements that take shape in the relationship. A highly conscious employer or employee can remain alert to how that can show up, and can avoid the slippery slope into abject servitude, inauthentic obligation, resentment, and the killing off of vitality that are so common in "jobs." And if you can find your match in a person who is also highly conscious, that's a big bonus in keeping the relationship expansive, free, and joyful. That's not absolutely necessary, though; you can be expansive, free and joyful while providing service for a "boss" who is a habitual thinker simply by maintaining your view of yourself as the boss of Me.com, on a temp assignment (maybe it's a very long-term temp assignment. ). It's more of a challenge, I think, for the conscious employer with an unconscious employee; you've got to apply yourself harder to motivate and inspire a person who is not a self-motivator and self-inspirer. But that can be a fun challenge, if you're up to it!

I wouldn't take it on at this point, though. Much better to hire the services of another self-employed person. I prefer the symmetry of power and responsibility.

[Some Random Loser]

Indeed the employment paradigm is quite disfunctional. If I ever decide to go "get a job" again I feel that it would be helpful if I shared some of my experiences with you folks. For you see... I take morbid fascination in the "work world" because stupidity is something that can be very enjoyable to witness. I cannot promise anything, but I've been thinking more and more about it... only time will tell!

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Some Random Loser

... stupidity is something that can be very enjoyable to witness.

Why is that?

[Some Random Loser]

It's funny

[bluedragon]

Maybe someone could answer me this question: how is it different to be an employee than to be a business partner? Isn't an employee just someone who enters a partnership with his employer, accepting a pay in exchange for his work? Now if the pay is disproportionately low compared to the value of his work, then of course, he is at a disadvantage. But what if it isn't? I mean, does being an employee have an intrinsic quality of inferiority to it? Doesn't the amount of pay he receives matter at all, when determining weather he is being used or if he is being treated as an equal?

Originally Posted by Angela

Because in addition to the written contract, there are so many unwritten agreements that take shape in the relationship. A highly conscious employer or employee can remain alert to how that can show up, and can avoid the slippery slope into abject servitude, inauthentic obligation, resentment, and the killing off of vitality that are so common in "jobs."

Angela, you seem to share a similar point of view. Your paragraph would imply that "abject servitude" is not something inherent to being an employee, but rather a mental trap that most employees do fall into, but that could also be avoided.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

Maybe someone could answer me this question: how is it different to be an employee than to be a business partner?

An employer controls the fate of the employee to a greater extent than vice versa. Standard economic theory says that the employee is usually a small, replaceable part of a larger machinery. Sure you can have a "conscious" relationship with your boss, but ultimately he decides what your job is, and whether you can keep it. Business-partners can also have some power over each other, but usually not to the same extent. So does that make it morally wrong to have people working for you? No, I don't think it does, as long both the employer and employee are perfectly aware that they're placing themselves in a hierarchy.

The way I see it, there are two types of morality: one based on results and the other based on individual freedom. In the first type we prioritize the end result - for example the completion of a skyscraper or a highway), and in the second one we prioritize the freedom of workers to do what they want. I think we need a bit of both, so I presume we'll have to strike a balance.

Marxists would tell you that the solution is letting ordinary workers take over corporations. The problem then arises of who has authority within the corporations. One solution to that is to have democratic elections to decide on things. Critics of this idea will tell you that this is still an authoritarian system (just like the employer-employee relationship), only now your fate is controlled by popular votes. Is that preferable? It could be.

As an employee I think it's important to constantly evaluate and expand your choices. In order to feel free, you'll need to have at least one back-up in case you lose your current job. Remind yourself to take action voluntarily, and not because someone told you to do it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

I mean, does being an employee have an intrinsic quality of inferiority to it?

Yes. In fact, bosses are routinely referred to in an employment situation as "superiors." Or "upper management." You'll hear talk of "up (or down) the food chain." The "people upstairs", "God," "MY team" (as opposed to my teammates), or "My people."

Angela, you seem to share a similar point of view. Your paragraph would imply that "abject servitude" is not something inherent to being an employee, but rather a mental trap that most employees do fall into, but that could also be avoided.

Exactly. I like the way Eric Roosevelt put it: you have to constantly evaluate and expand your choices. A person who is operating as an employee would be wise to always be ready, every day at that job, to step away at a moment's notice if necessary, as if he were a contractor.

[Some Random Loser]

"Having options" is just back-up slavery if master doesn't feed you enough biscuits.

The most dangerous individual in a society is one who doesn't give a **** and will drop anything at a moments notice on a whim. That's because such an individual is unmanagable.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Some Random Loser

"Having options" is just back-up slavery if master doesn't feed you enough biscuits.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I'm looking at it from a different perspective: seeing the conscious "employee" as a person who has a "customer," not a "boss" or "master." The conscious employee is aware that there are plenty of customers who would be happy to contract his company (Me, Inc.) to provide service, and constantly looks for ways to improve and increase the value he provides to make sure that there's always a waiting list.

This "slavery of the employee" that has been discussed on these forums has nothing to do with the boss. The slavery is entirely self-imposed. If you think of yourself as a slave with a master and no real options, no real choice, then you are keeping yourself in bondage from which no one but you can set you free.

[Some Random Loser]

I agree with you Angela. 100% and I'm not saying that to maintain civility. Your paradigm is a much better way of looking at things IMO.

I also would like to add that one can easily become dependent on the customers as well! For instance, notice how in the corporate owned businesses, it's the greatest sin of all time to make a customer upset!

People are people. I don't give a **** if you're paying me to do something. If you're a dickwad, I'm telling you off! I don't need your ****ing money. (watch I become homeless, LoL)

Get it? LoL

[Angela]

Yes, and I think I remember Steve writing about "firing the customer" if the relationship isn't win/win, didn't he? That may have been Stephen Pollan who wrote about that. And yeah, if you are dependent on one customer, you've just re-created that whole boss/emp master/slave paradigm.

You gotta stay alert, don't you!

[Andrew Brunelle]

I would have to say it's moral only if the employee knows what he's getting into. If the employee cannot provide value and get paid accordingly for it to meet his/her needs through pursuing his/her passion, then what other alternative is there? If nobody had employees, I have a feeling the world would be a far different place. People would be far more self-sufficient and wouldn't be tied to the system of money so tightly. There is no moral answer for this question. It's all about how the employee feels about it. If he's doing the job simply to not starve or freeze to death, then it is certainly immoral.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I would have to say it's moral only if the employee knows what he's getting into. .... If he's doing the job simply to not starve or freeze to death, then it is certainly immoral.

I don't think it's the employer's obligation to make sure the employee knows what he's getting into (paradigm-wise) before hiring. That's the employee's responsibility.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by Froztwolf

Steve Pavlina and Timothy Ferris both speak of how bad it is to be an employee as opposed to running your own enterprise through passive income.

Both of them (Mr. Ferris to a considerably larger degree) have income systems that depend on employees, either their own or somebody else's.

I believe strongly that it would be unsustainable for everyone to stop being an employee (despite what Ayn Rand says) and yet if you keep employees, surely you are benefiting of their ignorance and/or risk-aversion.

Thus my question: Knowing that being an employee is worse than running your own business, is it morally correct to have people working for you?

Morality is only a partial concern in this question, and though I haven't much to add to the discussion, I will say that while some may see value in self empowerment throguh entrepreneurship, others are not capable of the same.

Some people require the direction, courage and business savy of others to survive. Economic Darwinsism may come in to play here, meaning that those who can't survive but on the charitability of others are not fit for survival. Though without the employee, the employers productivity will be reduced to near ineffectiveness.

[RT Wolf]

"Would I really want someone else to do something I would never do and I believe is bad for them because I believe it's bad for me?" Seems to be the actual question, yes?

[Some Random Loser]

LoL. It's more a question of, there are projects that simply require many people to accomplish, and require a command structure to delegate the tasks and see the project to completion, or maintain operations.

Of course, how this is implemented, and to what benefit... and in what spirit... well that varies widely!

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Some Random Loser

"Having options" is just back-up slavery if master doesn't feed you enough biscuits. .

Sure, unless your back-up is self-employment or some sort of voluntary co-operation with other individuals. However, let's consider the alternative. The alternative to having options, is not having options. As an individual, I'd rather look around for options available to me now than wait for a radically different system to emerge during my life-time. Of course we can envision a different society - in fact, I think it's a good idea - but it seems even more important to talk about the choices we make as individuals, here and now.

[Some Random Loser]

I'm 100% with you on that. Personally I find it a good test of self-importance, though, to be a slave. It's a great way map out the ego!