Maybe I've Only Ever been #Employed for a Month (Years-&-Years Ago), but ... #EmploymentMoney, #HowDoesThatWork? (discussed @Quora) @TEDx @FoxNews #Employ #Employment #Employee #Unemployment #UnemploymentBenefits #EmployeeDiscount
The (possibly wrong) way I initially understand it: you 'attend' at your job for a number of hours (verified by your signature on paper at the workplace), and your employer gives you a number of dollars-per-hour.
Where does that money come from? I'm sure some employers put a 'performance bonus' on the wages (I dunno—extra money for every 'widget' sold?); but in most places, the employees have very little control over 'how much business the places do' (employees usually can't 'bring in more diners' or 'make audiences want to watch more movies' ... they can only do their best to make sure the people wouldn't mind coming back for the next dinner-out or theater-movie).
This comes up because–I'm sure you know–the recent epidemic has caused businesses to lose so much money that they couldn't keep their employees (who thus have to go-without, which thus causes 'the businesses they frequent' to lose money, which are then unable to pay their employees, etc.-etc.)
I'm guilty of a little 'misspeaking' here—the same kind
of misspeaking I blame game-shows for ... where they call their
points "dollars," and when contestants lose points then the
host says they "lost money" ...
No 'money' is lost by the employers; they're just 'not getting
future-money they expected to get.'
The way I suspect it works: The employer budgets a certain amount of money for employees every month-or-so—if `e's not able to budget enough one month, `e fires the ones the budget won't pay; if the employee-budget gains enough money, `e's able to hire more employees.
But–as this epidemic might be 'unveiling' (English translation–by-the-way–of "apocalypse")–we might be 'evolving beyond our need for employees':
(not to say 'we're approaching The Singularity,' ...
... but rather we might no-longer need to be employees.)
The word “Employ” is built on ancient words that mean "to Fold In" (|Involve in a |Particular Purpose).
'The story I've heard' (I'm not sure about 'the experience'—my disability set me on a different path) is that–around the age of 16 (when they can legally learn to- & get a license to-drive)–people typically 'become employed' in order to 'make money' (to pay for fuel, car-maintenance, housing, etc.)
The Money they Make is typically 'the money budgeted-last-month/year/week to employees this month/year/week.
Looking at it this way, employees are essentially 'slaves' (but not, as the full definition of that word implies that they are forced to do whatever sick things the employer wants them to do and -that they aren't free to quit; maybe a better word would be 'indentured servants' ... but not "servants," maybe 'errand-runner'; and maybe not "indentured," but 'paid' 😎).
'Slaves to future-money,' maybe? (Maybe that's another reason for the "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on most bills ... so that the money's not tied to 'the current- or past-ruler' so much as 'Our Father, whose slaves are treated better than some royal servants.')
Because the money employees are given isn't so-much 'for the work they do' as it is 'for making sure they can take care of themselves from work's end to work's next beginning'—they're making the same amount whether they're good at the job or just average ...
I guess 'the point I'm getting to' is that we ought to have a 'guaranteed income' (sort of like the 'Freedom Dividend' suggested by former-candidate Andrew Yang), but with the caveat that we must 'employ' ourselves—possibly fitting more with Napoleon Hill's description of the employer/employee-contract, in which he describes the two as "partners, collaborating with the customer to complete the transactions."
(That's the way I imagine they do it in STAR TREK: As long as they are verified 'in attendance' at their workplace, their wages keep rolling-in)
'Slaves to future-money,' maybe? (Maybe that's another reason for the "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on most bills ... so that the money's not tied to 'the current- or past-ruler' so much as 'Our Father, whose slaves are treated better than some royal servants.')Because the money employees are given isn't so-much 'for the work they do' as it is 'for making sure they can take care of themselves from work's end to work's next beginning'—they're making the same amount whether they're good at the job or just average ...
I guess 'the point I'm getting to' is that we ought to have a 'guaranteed income' (sort of like the 'Freedom Dividend' suggested by former-candidate Andrew Yang), but with the caveat that we must 'employ' ourselves—possibly fitting more with Napoleon Hill's description of the employer/employee-contract, in which he describes the two as "partners, collaborating with the customer to complete the transactions."
(That's the way I imagine they do it in STAR TREK: As long as they are verified 'in attendance' at their workplace, their wages keep rolling-in)
Know anything else interesting about that? Comment!
Comments
Post a Comment
I appreciate your comment, and I'll probably approve it & publish it soon (give me about a week before you try to post it again when it doesn't publish immediately ... thanks)