if your point is that on a societal level there should be a social security system, we're in agreement.
The exchange was about how "a boss" had power over you. I just pointed out that an individual company could not be held responsible for that security system. So yes, your boss has power over you?
But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work.
If you lose your job for longer, you still get fed and housed, but it's a painful experience. Partly to force you back to work, but mainly for a simple economic reason : we don't have infinite wealth to redistribute.
To redistribute wealth you need to generate it first. If there were no "force" on people, people would be less likely to drive a bus 8h a day, wake up at 3am to bake bread, or work 8h a day in a factory. I agree that their life would be better, and they might take better care of their children or parents, make more art, or read more books. But since that does not generate a working bus system, bread, or money that you can redistribute, I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?
> But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work
That’s incorrect.
Australia pays benefits forever. Even if you’ve never had a job. Even if you quit because you were bored.
Plenty of countries have free university, and pay a living allowance to students.
I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?
Provide a good base life (healthcare, for a start), and offer good wages to those who choose that. Again, plenty of countries do that now.
So we have established that the original point "the boss that you work for has power over you" is unfortunate but logical.
We have also established that a social safety net is a good thing, have agreed that it cannot be the role of individuals, and that we have delegated that to the state.
In the case of Australia, your example, it is actually a very sober system. There is no unemployment insurance like there is in Europe. In France or the Netherlands, if you lose your job and it is not your own doing, for two years your income level is sort of maintained (generally ~70%). Not in Australiaa. In Australia, if you lose your job, you go straight to the "JobSeeker Allowment", which is a fraction of minimum income. There are conditions to this allowment: you have to be registered as a job seeker, develop a job plan, apply to a set number of jobs or do a set number of trainings, volonteering, etc. So again, force is being used to get you to work, and if you do not comply, you lose (part of) your (already sober) rights. This is basically the same "basic income" that exists in many western societies.
And so now we're talking about university fees, which is another thing altogether. But OK, let's discuss university. There are two main ways that this is organised. Either the state subsidises basic secondary education, so that entry-level schools are (almost) free (generally still one months income per year, or thereabout). Generally this means that "better" schools are private and have annual tuition costs of upwards of a year of wages. This is for example the case in France.
In other systems, the state provides you a student loan. You may or may not have to pay interest over the capital sum, but it is still a loan. In some countries you don't have to pay back the loan if you finish the education. For example, in the Netherlands it is a loan, but it becomes a gift if you finish the education "on time".
In your example, Australia, is a "income‑contingent loan system". Repayments start once your income passes a threshold. The amount never becomes a gift, though if you never cross the threshhold the debt disappears when you die (well, your children pay it out of your inheritence, if something is left).
So, again, no free money: there are strings attached to incite people to work.
I'm not saying that this gives me great pleasure, just that this seems logical, since without extrinsic motivation it seems likely that a big set of economic activities would not be possible, for lack of manpower. Some day we may have a society of abundance, à la Star Trek, where money does not matter. But we are not currently in that society, because we do not have unlimited resources and energy?
if your point is that on a societal level there should be a social security system, we're in agreement.
The exchange was about how "a boss" had power over you. I just pointed out that an individual company could not be held responsible for that security system. So yes, your boss has power over you?
But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work.
If you lose your job for longer, you still get fed and housed, but it's a painful experience. Partly to force you back to work, but mainly for a simple economic reason : we don't have infinite wealth to redistribute.
To redistribute wealth you need to generate it first. If there were no "force" on people, people would be less likely to drive a bus 8h a day, wake up at 3am to bake bread, or work 8h a day in a factory. I agree that their life would be better, and they might take better care of their children or parents, make more art, or read more books. But since that does not generate a working bus system, bread, or money that you can redistribute, I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?