anyone. was an example. pick the hours of work needed, that’s the hours paid. not more, not less. fairly simple. If a company is so ultra massive, they could build dorms and housing, like they have in Taiwan, and rent them out to employees to live closer They would even pull a profit from it perhaps. Though less sp than more factory footprint.
But that isnt really the responsiblity of the company to provide. it is a perk for highly valued employees.
If people keep going this route, it will be the end of small business. may as well just welcome in amazon and the like to control our needs.
I don’t really think that specifically is the main threat to small businesses. A more obvious one: small businesses lack the human power to compete with a bigger one, as in in my small business I’m the only person and I can work from 9 to 7, but a bigger businesses has several shifts of people covering from 7 to 12.
Productivity can’t be the center or the goal of the economical activity. Quality of life and human rights should be respected. 80 hour weeks are ridiculous in so many ways, so of course I had a problem with what you posted. We aren’t even talking about a basic service that societies NEED, we are talking about a social network that is already up and running and being used by egotistic morons and dictator wannabes. We can do more than well without them working 80 hours a week, and I suspect the same is true without the stupid thing altogether.
While I don’s share your point of view, in the sense that I wouldn’t put the focus on the things you do, I still find that thought interesting; it never occurred to me we needed a benefits caps, meaning that companies should not be allowed to offer more than X, Y or Z benefits to the employees including meals. It’s something that I probably need to think more thoroughly because as I said it’s an idea I never considered so I also never thought of the consequences. However, I find it problematic:
we always hear about people saying that nobody should be rich because that means that person was exploiting others and blah blah blah. While I don’t buy it (can think of several examples where there was no exploitation), it seems natural that companies that are very profitable “want” or better to say should share the benefits with their employees
some jobs are very demanding, or require highly talented or unique professionals, so they will need to be attractive in order to attract this talent
companies, to some extent, should be able to negotiate a bit the way employees are compensated. Maybe instead of (more!!!) money meals can cut in and both parties are happy with the deal
I do see how the cap could help to control, or better to say to make sure things don’t go out of control, in some regards:
people with a lot of money concentrated in some area can make local prices go up, like a lot. We’ve seen that in San Francisco with real estate and rents
maybe it can normalise what I consider abnormal work-life balance situations, in which people own so much to their company that they need to go the extra mile as a norm
others…?
Anyway, as I said, I’m more worried about companies exploiting people and movie villain like megalomaniacs trying to normalise ridiculous things like 80 hour weeks.
The problem is quality of life highly depends on productivity. If you can’t compete you will lose your quality of life. Case in point Argentina and to a lesser extent Italy. Whatever compromise you reach needs to be sustainable.
I guess the problem here is to define “quality of life”. I don’t think that to have super fast cellphones and super high end bicycles and cars that are totally digitalised are necessarily the main ingredients to quality of life. Personal time, food that is not poison, education, affordable housing, etc… that’s quality of life.
I know what you mean though, progress is good and improves many aspects of life, but making profit has become more important than people’s real interests.
Samsung and other Korean fabs are incredibly successful in the areas of memory (DRAM/NAND) and display. Taiwanese companies in the same field are completely beaten. Same goes for analogue IC fabs in Japan. So there are areas were Taiwan and TSMC simply can’t compete as well.
I agree. mostly. What I mean is these high tech people are being paid a boat load for their 80 hour weeks. If the co.tract states housing, food etc. That’s cool. But it seems more fair to me to pay a person for their work and keep the company out of the personal life of the employee. Let them arrange what they like to eat.
Big companies can afford break rooms, cafeterias etc, most small businesses cannot.
It’s like giving tips. I find the idea annoying because it opens up variables that could screw the worker. Pay them their fair wage and be done with it in my opinion. It makes cost management easier. I suppose the whole tips, bonus and other such systems are useful to rig the game and make unprofitable years balance out more, and probably to incentivize better work. I just dont like it though. fair wage, if a person slacks off, fired. but the world doesnt work that way.
It is why I like peice work and sub contracts. paid for the job. It’s on the workers to get it done on time, and they are agreeing ahead of time on compensation.
It was an example. us a 10 hour work week or a 100 hour work week. my core point is the same for the spectrum. Fair pay, employees should be responsible for themselves when it comes to non work hours.
I do care about small businesses. that is why it is hard to watch the current work condition for so many, the entitled employee can easily destroy the business within a few pay cycles. Happens all the time. Just like employees should be paid fairly and treated properly as per their job, the employee should respect their employer and do the agreed upon job, not slack and find a way that could be likened to legal stealing. It goes both ways. That’s why Ithink the most simple and fair way is pay someone for what the job is worth.
To extrapolate, consumers need to also get used to raised prices if we are to support human labor and labor paid well. It cant be both ways (high pay and more jobs/less automation as well as continually cheaper products).
As a small business, me and my wife both work minimum 100 weeks. 7 days a week. It ain’t pretty, but it gets the job done. End of the day, it is a choice. high pay, more responsibility. Low pay, less responsibility. I dislike the variable methodology because it is far to easy to rig the job for both employee and employer.
Small businesses have a known cost, workers can choose to make bank or skin by. I always work sub contracts, it is how I have most of my money over the years. As have so many others. Agreed upon prices upfront are fair in my mind. no one gets screwed.
I realize it doesnt work in all jobs, but does for many such as manufacturing/production. Less so for r&d.
Is that due to skill?Ｔａｉｗａｎ ｏｎｃｅ ｈａｄ ２7% of the DRAM market share, but Samsung just killed them with a price war. Memory chips aren’t as hard to make to begin with, but currently Micron has the leading technology. And Micron Taiwan is just Inotera; Micron bought its remaining stake in Inotera.
I totally agree with this but I don’t see how it’s related to the rest of the argumentation.
And again, regarding free food and so. Your argument is that smaller businesses cannot compete with that. I don’t get that either. Small businesses also cannot compete in terms of salary with big companies (or companies that offer that).
I also don’t see why employer and employee cannot come to that agreement: my remuneration is X money, Y stocks, and Z goods, food, discounts, whatever.
Probably. Or maybe simplify the offer and live with simpler goods instead of being a rat in a consumerism race in which is soooooo important to have newer clothes, vehicles, phones, and toys every 6 to 12 months.
Responsibility, skills, that specific job demand and how wearing it is, etc…
TSMC never did DRAM or display and both of those are lower on the value chain. Taiwan is a small country you can’t expect it to do everything. It needs to pick and choose.
It is related to the rest of the point because the contract theoretically states what needs doing and what compensation is. If there is a mass exodus from California to Texas for tech workers and the commute becomes slower, this is not really the company’s responsibility to solve. That said, they can renegotiate the contract next term.
2 sides to every coin. I agree workers need fair compensation. This is why and how unions were created, to give a voice to the worker. The flip side of that is in some places and some industries the unions have gotten so damn entitled that they literally kill themselves and companies just leave because it is impossible. granted many companies are just greedy c*nts. but many arent either. A perfect example of unions murdering an industry is mill work in western canada. it’s essentially dead. the land is raped, exported to asia, milled and sent back. They did it to themselves. And the environment is still getting ravaged just as fast, so it is lose lose. Unless you are China, Taiwan or Japan etc in this case
Edit. in answer to the bold text of your quote. It is easier to pay some fair, and let them figure their own preferences out. everyone has a different diet, medical needs etc. If the company is responsible it causes all kinds of costs, expenses, liabilities and still unhappy results. just on food. say Company A provides lunch. set lunch, say pork lunch box. vegan employees are fucked. they cannot afford the time or resources to make menus for each employee. This is where fair pay is good, and the employee can do whatever it is they like. KISS method. otherwise you get loads of costs, which are compounded to consumer, and shit goes rotten fast. less so for massive companies pulling in either great margins or great scale.
The price war was before 3D memory, and Samsung definitely is more skilled at etching, resulting in their dominanc now. Aside from the price war, Taiwan’s DRAM manufacturers weren’t putting enough focus in research and development. The same goes for the display fabs as well.
Right now in the semiconductor industry, you would need technical advantages to have market share. Sure a company can have the fastest or highest density DRAM, or even the least power hungry DRAM, but having the market share implies higher yield during fabrication, making it cheaper to manufacture. Higher yield could come from having some technical know how to produce a better recipe or manage and monitor the tools. It could also come from a design more suitable for fabrication. That’s where an IDM/design-plus-foundry might have an advantage over an ODM/fabless.
And the contract says jack shit, because a contract probably doesn’t exist, so saying that their contract doesn’t say they’re being paid for xx hours is pretty irrelevant.
