richardhutnik on 13 July 2011
| HappySqurriel said: I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you're trying to get across ... Unpaid work has always existed and people accept these terms of "employment" because they believe the potential payout is worth the lack of one initially. Often these individuals are getting valuable skills in exchange for their free labour, which can translate into far greater employment opportunities elsewhere even if their current internship doesn’t land them a job with the company. Commissioned sales are the ultimate in performance pay and, while there are lots of negatives with this approach, it tends to attract and keep people who are good at the job. If you walk into many small and medium sized companies the highest earning people in the company are the commissioned sales people (often earning more than the executives) so they’re hardly being exploited by taking no salary in exchange for their labour. Every year the amount of "Internet Monies" is growing primarily because people will pay you to get access to your audience if you build a popular enough site/service. People are earning 6 figures on youtube posting dumb videos, web-comic artists and bloggers have built significant empires, and countless websites have become profitable without charging users a penny for their services. Media outlets are failing to take advantage of this because they cling to a business model that is broken and refuse to see its flaws. |
I am looking at something, not trying to get any point across. It is a case of, "If this is true, then what do you see as the impact on the economy"?
If the end result ends up being an entire economy shaped so only 10% of people actually are profitable doing this, and can make a living, and supports a 90% failure rate, and that is the normal model, what happens to the economy? If all you have are winners and losers, and not the middle guys, then what happens?
