Obviously. When you're a company of one - they're one and the same. When you're a company of 200k - you're a drop in an ocean.
What you care about diverges from everyone else, and the main thing you have in common is maximizing the compensation / enjoyment curve.
Most people's enjoyment at work is not going to go down sharply because their employer is looking at how much time the average person spends in the office.
> Most people's enjoyment at work is not going to go down sharply because their employer is looking at how much time the average person spends in the office.
I have a hard time thinking this is actually true. Is there any data on this?
I don't think it's obvious, because there's actually three forces at play: the individual desires of one person, the collective desires of all people, and the individual desires of the "business entity".
The distinction is borne of the different methods of decision-making within the business. Traditional capitalist enterprises put the last in that list as the highest priority at the expense of the other two. Worker-owned coops attempt to do away with the distinction between the latter two entirely. Communes ignore the first and the last and focus only on the second.
The point is, there are different ways of organizing people into a coherent mass to achieve certain goals, but Westerners are mostly only comfortable considering these issues in terms of capitalist modes of business (see the framing used throughout this discussion, e.g., the casual use of the word "employer", etc.).
I am aware that capitalist enterprise is the default setting of economies across the globe. I just want to point out how the conversation and insights into the problem are obscured by the normalization of certain ideological choices over others.
