4 ms·

I'm always amazed when articles like this don't even mention the labor protections that other countries provide. It is hard to imagine a better way if you don't

I'm always amazed when articles like this don't even mention the labor protections that other countries provide. It is hard to imagine a better way if you don't believe one exists, or haven't ever experienced it. It's not just that some people have union protection, entire nations have banned practices like these. Entire nations have guaranteed vacations that dwarf anything seen in America. Whole peoples have collectively said that the needs of life are more important than the needs of business and aligned their laws accordingly.

hueving 11y ago
>Whole peoples have collectively said that the needs of life are more important than the needs of business and aligned their laws accordingly. While others with the capacity for critical thinking have realized that the economy is what enables a good life. Greece has been pretty good about guaranteeing 'the needs of life' for government employees and look what good it did them.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- acdha 11y ago
  This is the famous libertarian cognitive vice, assuming that the quality of government is constant: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the_libertarian.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the... Your theory needs to account for how e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. also provide “the needs of life” with economies which are rather different than Greece. It's just possible that quality of implementation matters as much as the original idea.
  - hueving 11y ago
    What are you talking about? I was showing how ridiculous the strawman is that it's a simple 'people vs business' decision. People and business are ultimately one and the same. There is not one single country that has a terrible economy with a good life for its citizens. Unless the country is just riding on massive natural resources, the people have to work enough to sustain the lifestyle they live. Other countries aren't going to support them indefinitely.
    - acdha 11y ago
      You haven't shown anything of the sort. iandanforth made the factual observation that various countries define the worker:employer relationship differently and you responded with a facile assertion that only foolish people would fail to put economic interests over people and a single cherry-picked example, which itself was too simplistic to be of use[1]. Now you're going on with some narrative about how people don't want to work which is straight out of right-wing talk radio and which you've failed to supported even with an anecdote this time. It's absurd to claim that poor countries are poor because they provide too many benefits to workers at the expense of business when we regularly hear reports about the brutally unforgiving lifestyles of sweatshop workers, subsistence farmers, etc. Conversely, you've failed to even show awareness that some countries have both strong economies and significant social support – Germany provides significantly more for workers than the United States but it would be absurd to claim that this depends on other countries to “support them indefinitely”. So … could you start over and explain precisely the principle you believe is in effect here, and how it holds true across e.g. the G-10 countries? 1. Greece's economy wasn't exactly great before but their immediate crisis was caused by corruption aided by malfeasance by major banks, not inefficiencies which they've had for generations. Absolutely none of it had to do with benefits to workers or people being lazy.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Greece is an outlier. You'd be better off looking at Australia.
- pron 11y ago
  The economy (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean b/c the definition can be pretty wide, but assuming you mean economic productivity) is one tool in service of a good life. And like others, it works well in certain dosages -- not too little, but not too much, either, and, as usual in social constructs, there are always competing interests at play. That's why other people with the capacity for critical thinking have decided to offset the interests of those who most benefit from maximal productivity with that of those whose lives it affects the most by ensuring that power stemming from control of resources is balanced with power in numbers, thus ensuring that some types of freedom do not so overwhelmingly crush other types of freedom.
- anon4 11y ago
  North Korea also doesn't have vacations. On a more philosophical note, what good is an economy if you can't enjoy it?
mc32 11y ago
Certainly these telematics are problematic, from a social perspective. They drive the last ounce of productivity out of people. I find them somewhat repulsive because they are a top down authoritarian way to drive up productivity and squeeze out the last pockets of air in inefficient systems --the problem is people were not built to perform at 100% all the time. You need BS time. Time to relax a bit. That said, these jobs will be on their way out, once automated cars get here. There is no reason they can't have delivery vans 24 hrs a day with people self-servicing the receiving process. They could deliver at the workplace, at home, wherever you choose. In the end, as dehumanizing as this telemetric supervising is, these jobs are on their way out. PS. Key stroke monitoring has been a thing at some tech companies for a very long time. Also, many of the current tech darlings have monitoring built in to their internal tools. Or, wonder why we don't see more non sanctioned internal substantiated product leaks?
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Interesting point of view. These people submit to dehumanizing surveillance to avoid getting fired. But good news - they're gonna get fired anyway!
- mattmanser 11y ago
  Apart from that's obviously not going to happen because of this: self-servicing the receiving process. We don't tend to actually pay for delivery costs any more, so when a company suddenly starts asking me to come down to the street to pick up the delivery, where's my benefit? You're just going to lose business, for a saving of a couple of $.

hueving 11y ago

>Whole peoples have collectively said that the needs of life are more important than the needs of business and aligned their laws accordingly. While others with the capacity for critical thinking have realized that the economy is what enables a good life. Greece has been pretty good about guaranteeing 'the needs of life' for government employees and look what good it did them.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
acdha 11y ago
This is the famous libertarian cognitive vice, assuming that the quality of government is constant: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the_libertarian.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/the... Your theory needs to account for how e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. also provide “the needs of life” with economies which are rather different than Greece. It's just possible that quality of implementation matters as much as the original idea.
- hueving 11y ago
  What are you talking about? I was showing how ridiculous the strawman is that it's a simple 'people vs business' decision. People and business are ultimately one and the same. There is not one single country that has a terrible economy with a good life for its citizens. Unless the country is just riding on massive natural resources, the people have to work enough to sustain the lifestyle they live. Other countries aren't going to support them indefinitely.
  - acdha 11y ago
    You haven't shown anything of the sort. iandanforth made the factual observation that various countries define the worker:employer relationship differently and you responded with a facile assertion that only foolish people would fail to put economic interests over people and a single cherry-picked example, which itself was too simplistic to be of use[1]. Now you're going on with some narrative about how people don't want to work which is straight out of right-wing talk radio and which you've failed to supported even with an anecdote this time. It's absurd to claim that poor countries are poor because they provide too many benefits to workers at the expense of business when we regularly hear reports about the brutally unforgiving lifestyles of sweatshop workers, subsistence farmers, etc. Conversely, you've failed to even show awareness that some countries have both strong economies and significant social support – Germany provides significantly more for workers than the United States but it would be absurd to claim that this depends on other countries to “support them indefinitely”. So … could you start over and explain precisely the principle you believe is in effect here, and how it holds true across e.g. the G-10 countries? 1. Greece's economy wasn't exactly great before but their immediate crisis was caused by corruption aided by malfeasance by major banks, not inefficiencies which they've had for generations. Absolutely none of it had to do with benefits to workers or people being lazy.
chris_wot 11y ago
Greece is an outlier. You'd be better off looking at Australia.
pron 11y ago
The economy (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean b/c the definition can be pretty wide, but assuming you mean economic productivity) is one tool in service of a good life. And like others, it works well in certain dosages -- not too little, but not too much, either, and, as usual in social constructs, there are always competing interests at play. That's why other people with the capacity for critical thinking have decided to offset the interests of those who most benefit from maximal productivity with that of those whose lives it affects the most by ensuring that power stemming from control of resources is balanced with power in numbers, thus ensuring that some types of freedom do not so overwhelmingly crush other types of freedom.
anon4 11y ago
North Korea also doesn't have vacations. On a more philosophical note, what good is an economy if you can't enjoy it?

mc32 11y ago

Certainly these telematics are problematic, from a social perspective. They drive the last ounce of productivity out of people. I find them somewhat repulsive because they are a top down authoritarian way to drive up productivity and squeeze out the last pockets of air in inefficient systems --the problem is people were not built to perform at 100% all the time. You need BS time. Time to relax a bit. That said, these jobs will be on their way out, once automated cars get here. There is no reason they can't have delivery vans 24 hrs a day with people self-servicing the receiving process. They could deliver at the workplace, at home, wherever you choose. In the end, as dehumanizing as this telemetric supervising is, these jobs are on their way out. PS. Key stroke monitoring has been a thing at some tech companies for a very long time. Also, many of the current tech darlings have monitoring built in to their internal tools. Or, wonder why we don't see more non sanctioned internal substantiated product leaks?

cousin_it 11y ago
Interesting point of view. These people submit to dehumanizing surveillance to avoid getting fired. But good news - they're gonna get fired anyway!
mattmanser 11y ago
Apart from that's obviously not going to happen because of this: self-servicing the receiving process. We don't tend to actually pay for delivery costs any more, so when a company suddenly starts asking me to come down to the street to pick up the delivery, where's my benefit? You're just going to lose business, for a saving of a couple of $.