I'd wager that when looking at countries with roughly the same level of industrialization, whether humans view fellow humans as something more than mere resources is linked to a certain set of attitudes.

I'd guess that reduced working hours are positively correlated to pluralism and pacifism, and perhaps negatively correlated to religiousness.

The more you think that life ought to be lived a certain way, the more likely you are to see work as a savior from straying from that way.

Looking at countries that have severely mistreated minorities, natives or remote people might also reveal a correlation, the more so the less this is part of the public consciousness.

My boss congratulated me for the offer, said it's a pity that I leave AND spoke with HR so that I do have a shorter period of notice (otherwise I would have had problems). All on the same day. While accompanying me on my way out he said that especially with students, he invests in people. The doors are always open and he would be glad to see me there again. In fact, he recommended a former student worker to join another company before graduation in order to have a better looking CV. Im kinda blown away by this non-selfish (in a company's view) behaviour and strongly consider to rejoin at some point.

Only stupid companies get angry at employees lured away by others.

Both bosses were good bosses and sounds like your boss was a good manager too.

The beauty of capitalism is that it rewards such altruistic behavior - in that you may rejoin them in the future.

Actually, it is true. Treating your customers, employees and associates results in them wanting to do business with you, which increases profits. Treat them badly, they go away and deal with someone else.

Put simply, you aren't going to go the extra mile for someone you hate.

Excuse me? My grandma was a slave worker in Germany. Kidnapped from the streets of Warsaw and forcefully moved to Southwest Germany to work for a rich farmer.

It happened in the main part from 1939-1945, with a total of 8 million people enslaved at one point or another.

On the other hand, US slavery went on for three centuries, with a peak number of 4 million slaves and also about 8 million affected in total.

The time scale is why I think there is a major difference, both in terms of life years stolen as well as in terms of possible social and cultural adaptation or accustomizaton to slavery, the latter being the point of the OP.

I'm Israeli & spent the last 6 years living in Germany. I lived in Austria for 8 years before that. Israel is quite a dog-eat-dog hyper-capitalism kind of economy, maybe not to the wild extent of the US but definitely closer to it than to Germany & Austria (the two countries have very similar culture/attitudes in this particular area).

While there are plenty of asshole bosses here, the kind of attitude common in hyper-capitalist countries is not comparable. Even the assholes will not dare publicly espouse the kind of Libertarian anti-working-class vitriol in a Berlin working place (or even outside of it).

How often did you hear your German boss say that the state should not offer welfare as it's just supporting laziness? Or that "taxes are theft"? That whatever work "the free market" doesn't directly support via consumers spending money should not exist (e.g. publicly funded theatre)?

Libertarians are not anti-working-class.

No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it.

Libertarianism is mainly about people being free to choose, and being responsible for their choices, as long as they aren't hurting others in the process.

Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more.

Vis a vis classism, if you refuse to regulate and allow everyone to be "free to choose", you are essentially advocating a dog-eat-dog world where people with money and power consolidate more and more of it. This is "feudalism" and it generally results in a raw deal for the poor.

That's conflating Anarchists with Libertarians. Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Feudalism is something different altogether.

Unless with "libertarians" you are referring to ancaps, this is just false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Rise_of_anarchi...

At some point you have to acknowledge the irony at refusing to see Libertarianism as anti-poor ideology, while simultaneously pointing people to a man who worked (and trained others to work with at the University if Chicago) far right dictators like Pinochet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_f...

(Ironically, you say Libertarian Friedman supported far right dictator Pinochet and the other reply says Libertarianism is for no government at all. Clearly something is amiss with these two criticisms of Libertarianism.)

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-...

If you have any evidence of advocacy for repression in any of Friedman's lifetime of his books, articles, or lectures, I'd like to see it.

I already pointed you to one of Allende’s chief advisors identifying Friedman as providing the direct, ideological grounding for the Chilean coup, so I’m not sure what more evidence you want. What Friedman said in his speeches and wrote in books is not the sum total of his work and ideology. There’s also what he did, who he allied himself with, etc. He was remarkably consistent in denouncing his detractors as part of a “communist conspiracy,” while at the same time being remarkably callous about things like the apartheid regime in South Africa and the Tiennamen Square massacre. So I find appeals to him as some undaunted supporter of “freedom” specious at best.

Something from Friedman himself, not filtered through hearsay. Friedman has a very large body of work you can draw from. If he's a fascist, you should be able to find it in that work.

Again, on the one hand you have someone who fled Chile and was murdered by the Pinochet regime and someone who flew into give speeches and pal around with the junta. I’m sorry if I weigh the account of the former more than that of the latter.

Besides, do you really believe someone could talk with Pinochet for 45 minutes and thereby turn him into a monster? It's not credible. It's more likely Pinochet used Friedman for propaganda value, and stroked Friedman's ego. People who run governments tend to be users and tend to be masters at stroking ego.

I once had a conversation with a Senator whom I despised. He was incredibly charming in person. I can easily see falling under the spell of someone like that.

Frankly, you don't like libertarianism, which is your choice, but if this 45 minute conversation with Pinochet (for which no transcript exists) is all you have, it isn't much of anything.

I still think it's ironic that libertarianism's detractors claim it's both about no government at all and oppressive, authoritarian regimes. Clearly both positions can't be right, and likely neither.

For example in the UK don't post a first class letter on Friday as work is deliberately kept back to ensure there is OT at the weekend.

The basis of the American work ethic is in dreaming. Clearly, you've chosen to disregard the centuries of European, African, Oriental and S./Central American slavery, ritual sacrifice, imperialism and almost constant war and subjugation.

But, you know - the intentional racism instilled by the English must be the lingering driver of American commerce and ambition.