Author Topic: Is wage labor ending as a societal norm?  (Read 350 times)

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
Is wage labor ending as a societal norm?
« on: July 02, 2025, 04:57:52 PM »
Before industrialization started taking hold—say before the 1830s/40s in the US—most people were self-employed. The general ideal was economic independence. That meant owning rentable land/property, or a small business—having assets that generated income.

Over time, as textile mills and factories attracted people to urban areas, more people began working for wages. From the 1900s to the 1940s wage labor became the dominant mode of work for Americans. Many people stayed in the same job/company their entire lives. Unions and the New Deal made wage labor quite secure, with pensions, benefits, legal job protections, etc. This kind of economic working arrangement peaked some time between the 50s and 70s. Then as unions declined, people started job-hopping for raises and company loyalty seemed passé.

In the 21st century, pensions declined and real wages stagnated for many. Wage labor is still the predominant mode of work but the bloom has been off for so long that disenchantment, anxiety, and finger pointing over fairness have taken the place of loyalty and security. Many people stay in jobs for a few years and move on. Bosses don’t like their work and workers don’t like their bosses.

I know many of you got tired of wage labor and Fired, partly because of this economic model that will be turning 200 years of age pretty soon.

Where is this headed? Gigs/Consulting? More individual proprietorships? Frugal saving and Fire? AI something? Will SS, Medicare, and other safety-net programs go away as the wage labor that gave rise to them does?

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3947
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Is wage labor ending as a societal norm?
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2025, 10:36:47 AM »
It will depend on politics and tax laws as much as anything.  Pensions were created because the tax code favored them.  When tax laws changed, the focus on pensions shifted to IRAs and 401(k)s.

More recently, the big shift has been from "employee" to "independent contractor."  Again, the companies do this because it makes the most business sense -- they don't have to offer benefits, nor do they have to pay the employer's share of SS or unemployment insurance (not sure about workers' comp).  DOL has historically been the force that drew the line and forced companies to treat people as "employees," but that has been waning for a long time due to the priorities of the more recent political appointees.  And the decline of unions mean there is no countervailing force to compel employers to treat people as employees. 

The Covid era, I think, will further push this along, as it illustrated how feasible it is for many people to work outside of a formal office environment and collaborate virtually.  Employer control over time/place/manner of work has been one of the major considerations in determining whether someone is a contractor or employee, so making work location/hours flexible would enable more companies to shift more people over to the contractor side.

We will always have a significant portion of the populace that is considered an employee; even if the local restaurant is owned by an individual, they still need to hire people to work there, and it would take a major change in law for those kinds of employees to be considered independent contractors.  But even there, we are seeing the growth of companies that are themselves contractors who provide their own employees to do jobs -- e.g., janitorial services.  Ultimately, the individuals are employees, but they are employed by the contracting company, which of course takes a cut of the profits, so it's likely worse for those individuals than if they were hired directly by the office. 

My worry is really the hollowing-out of the mid-tier jobs.  People with skills in high demand can do well either as employees or contractors; conversely, there will always be low-paid service jobs for the people with minimal skills.  But the whole teacher/firefighter/nurse kind of work that created middle-class lifestyles is getting broken up and parceled out.  For example, in nursing, we have massive credential inflation -- we've gone from 2-yr nursing degrees, to 4-yr degrees, to post-grad degrees being expected to get the best pay.  We have also divided out types of nursing to allow NPs to do some of the stuff doctors used to do (with, again, additional credentialing).  You literally cannot get a job as a physical therapist now without a Ph.D!  The folks with those various credentials can do well.  At the low end, we have a tremendous number of minimum-wage jobs as "aides" or "assistants" who work in hospitals and offices and people's homes for very little money.  And often you need some number of hours in those positions even to be admitted to a program to get the better credentials.  So again, the folks with skills and ability and enough money/time to study and volunteer and all can do very well, while the folks who can't will struggle on very low wages.  That great middle-ground seems to be getting narrower, and the path to get there steeper.

I'm also thinking about firefighting, because one of my son's HS friends has been focused on that since he was about 16.  I had NO idea the number of classes and certifications it took to be a firefighter!  And even then, there are more classes and even a year-long fire academy to move up and get paid more.  He spent 2 yrs in HS doing this stuff, and this past year out of HS taking more classes, with the hope to be admitted to the fire academy in the end.  Right now, he volunteers at the local station, because he needs a certain number of volunteer hours for his next certification; he works as a plumber on the side to earn money when he's not studying or volunteering.  And if he succeeds with all of this, he'll get a job paying around $65K -- not bad at all, but damn that's a shit-ton of work to get there.  He'd make better money as a full-time plumber.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Is wage labor ending as a societal norm?
« Reply #2 on: Today at 06:52:55 AM »
I'm happily a self-employed person, running my own practice. I tried working as an employee and I couldn't help but realise how badly I was getting fucked (billing $1m a year but getting paid 1/8th of that...no thanks). For me I would tolerate only being a partner or a sole trader. Nothing else. As an employee you are not only subsidising the business's profits, but you are also getting a lot of leave entitlements (e.g. sick leave) that you may not fully need or be able to use (or cash out); you are subsidising all the below-average workers at your company; you are subsidising all the HR people and other middleman as well as marketing and overheads at your firm. Not for me!

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3966
Re: Is wage labor ending as a societal norm?
« Reply #3 on: Today at 07:08:26 AM »
No, I don’t think so, and I’m not sure that your characterization of early 19th century labor is accurate either.

What percentage of the working population was either enslaved labor, indentured labor, or employed labor? Jefferson’s ideal was the small independent farmer, but that was kind of a fantasy.