(/mild rant alert/)
I almost said "wage slave," but I didn't want to be too harsh. However, I wanted something stronger than "wage-earner," especially when referring to those in free societies.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being a wage-earner--in fact, it's honorable, individually.
However, for a society, it can cause a pernicious warping of values and mindsets, promoting over-reliance on authority (the stick) rather than opportunity (the carrot) as a driver of the economy and society.
Wage-earning is by nature authoritarian, even in the most entrepreneurial corporations. If you get paid a wage, you are beholden to your boss. You can get fired for one mistake. You naturally look to the authority structure for your validation rather than yourself--though if the corporation is flexible, with bonuses and quick promotions, this problem can be mitigated.
If you're an entrepreneur, it's just you and those you work with and your customers. Nobody can fire you, though if you depend on just one other business (*cough Amazon) you may find yourself as a kind of voluntary wage serf after all, but that's another discussion.
The worst wage-serf societies historically have been the old communists, now mostly gone except for N. Korea and Cuba, but think of pre-1991 USSR and China, where there was almost no private business and everything was collectivized and top-down (note: not looking for a political discussion here, but rather, an economic one). But as soon as their economies were liberalized, economic activity exploded--so there are always people who are natural entrepreneurs.
But there are people who are natural wage-serfs, too, and we have to watch out for them and their insidious anti-entrepreneur viewpoint.
I write this because of a FB comment I saw recently. The representative of a local family-owned ski area was bemoaning the fact that the sheriffs' department closed the road due to heavy snow--heavy for Arizona, anyway. Northerners would laugh, of course. But the roads did need to be plowed, and near the summit, there was ice and snow on the roads. So, perfect for the ski area itself, not so good for unprepared drivers. Anyone with snow tires, 4WD and/or chains should have been fine, of course.
What's my point? One jerk called the ski rep "greedy" for hoping the road would soon be opened to those with proper tires and vehicles, and hoping that soon the roads would be completely clear and dry. Yeah, "greedy" for a family-owned business to actually, wonder of wonders, provide the service and make their money for the year, especially since the ski season at this particular place is usually only 2-3 months. This jerk complained that taxpayer money might be spent to clear the roads and enforce the "proper equipment" rule, and that some idiots might crash themselves anyway, and the emergency services would have to rescue them, and that would cost more taxpayer money, and why should people down in the desert pay for clearing the snow for people who live up on the mountain?
That set me to thinking, and I remembered other instances of calling businesses "greedy" for simply doing their jobs. I've seen indie authors called "greedy" for charging more than 2.99 for an ebook, though seldom have I seen publishers called greedy for charging 12.99. I've been the target of the ire of people who complain that I shouldn't charge at all for my books "because there's no cost to print." One benighted soul thought I should make all my books free as soon as I'd made my costs back--so apparently I should work for free and never have any aspirations of actually building a business.
I didn't reply, but I wanted to reply with "How'd you like to work for nothing but room and board?"
Note, some businesses are greedy, especially big ones with high-paid executives and no care for society. I get that. But there's still this idea out there that anyone who wants to make money and build a business is somehow "greedy." Yeesh.
