3 ms·

What's bewildering to me is that you don't sound bewildered: you sound offended. You sound like something is at stake for you in his behaviour. Which is fine, i

What's bewildering to me is that you don't sound bewildered: you sound offended. You sound like something is at stake for you in his behaviour. Which is fine, it's ok to admit that. I am personally offended by your post, for example. Your standard of "professionalism" seems too high, and in any case, as someone who believes our society is based on the exploitation of workers, I think "professionalism" is a corrupt standard in any case, and to call his position "shameless and unethical" is the height of misplaced self-righteousness.

orthecreedence 9y ago
Thanks, you touched on an important point for me. Workers are expected to have 110% output all the time, and nowadays to even work on nights and weekends. Arguing for pure ethics on the worker side of things while ignoring the unrealistic expectations from the employer side seems almost delusional. That said, I love my employers, love my job, and I know they love me and the work I do. I'm also a non-trivial shareholder in my company. I am incentivized to do well. But everything is a transaction, including the information we share with each other, and learning to optimize this transaction so it benefits both my overall work process and the results I give my employers is a fine line that I've learned to walk over 12 years in the professional world. I know how to optimize my output without airing every little detail of my inner workings to the rest of the team.
mangodrunk 9y ago
I agree with this sentiment. Do you have any references regarding this exploitation, especially in regards to knowledge workers? Now that many of us aren't involved in the process of food and energy production, it seems that we have a good opportunity to live more and work less.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  > Do you have any references regarding this exploitation, especially in regards to knowledge workers? Unfortunately, no, although I'm sure it would be easy enough to dig up some articles. My knowledge of the anecdotal, based on conversations with people. That said, I've had the same conversation with many people! People are working harder for less. I've even heard of people who get passed up for promotions if they use any of their vacation time. As an aside, I've said in other parts of this conversation tree but I'll say it again: I love my employers and my job, so these statements don't reflect on them. > it seems that we have a good opportunity to live more and work less. This one also hits home to me, especially with the upcoming automation boom. We need to think of wealth redistribution channels that take a higher-level view than just "let the market decide." How will anyone have jobs if there is nothing left to do? Does all the wealth just funnel to those who own the automated systems? UBI comes to mind. Many people really seem to hate it (labeling it as socialism even though it has nothing to do with workers' ownership of production) and write it off immediately as unfairly taxing the rich to give the poor a free ride. People really seem to defend the rich a lot in America, even though 100 years of a commoner's salary is pocket change to the people who would be hit hardest by a UBI. The term "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" couldn't be more true. Or maybe there's another wealth distribution mechanism that could solve the problem too, but I'm not aware of any. EDIT: just realized your response was to the parent comment, not me. Oh well, the points still stand =]

orthecreedence 9y ago

Thanks, you touched on an important point for me. Workers are expected to have 110% output all the time, and nowadays to even work on nights and weekends. Arguing for pure ethics on the worker side of things while ignoring the unrealistic expectations from the employer side seems almost delusional. That said, I love my employers, love my job, and I know they love me and the work I do. I'm also a non-trivial shareholder in my company. I am incentivized to do well. But everything is a transaction, including the information we share with each other, and learning to optimize this transaction so it benefits both my overall work process and the results I give my employers is a fine line that I've learned to walk over 12 years in the professional world. I know how to optimize my output without airing every little detail of my inner workings to the rest of the team.

mangodrunk 9y ago

I agree with this sentiment. Do you have any references regarding this exploitation, especially in regards to knowledge workers? Now that many of us aren't involved in the process of food and energy production, it seems that we have a good opportunity to live more and work less.

orthecreedence 9y ago
> Do you have any references regarding this exploitation, especially in regards to knowledge workers? Unfortunately, no, although I'm sure it would be easy enough to dig up some articles. My knowledge of the anecdotal, based on conversations with people. That said, I've had the same conversation with many people! People are working harder for less. I've even heard of people who get passed up for promotions if they use any of their vacation time. As an aside, I've said in other parts of this conversation tree but I'll say it again: I love my employers and my job, so these statements don't reflect on them. > it seems that we have a good opportunity to live more and work less. This one also hits home to me, especially with the upcoming automation boom. We need to think of wealth redistribution channels that take a higher-level view than just "let the market decide." How will anyone have jobs if there is nothing left to do? Does all the wealth just funnel to those who own the automated systems? UBI comes to mind. Many people really seem to hate it (labeling it as socialism even though it has nothing to do with workers' ownership of production) and write it off immediately as unfairly taxing the rich to give the poor a free ride. People really seem to defend the rich a lot in America, even though 100 years of a commoner's salary is pocket change to the people who would be hit hardest by a UBI. The term "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" couldn't be more true. Or maybe there's another wealth distribution mechanism that could solve the problem too, but I'm not aware of any. EDIT: just realized your response was to the parent comment, not me. Oh well, the points still stand =]