23 ms·

For some reason, those of us in the US measure productivity in terms of "value created for our employer" or "value created for the business". That doesn't make

For some reason, those of us in the US measure productivity in terms of "value created for our employer" or "value created for the business". That doesn't make any sense. You need to measure productivity in terms of what matters to you, which includes time with your kids, spirituality, and such. The amount of value you create for your employer probably shouldn't get much weight.

internetman55 9y ago
Really makes you wonder why people don't value themselves. Does society systematically strip the underclass of their self-esteem? Every single job I've had I knew that the purpose was either 1) to make me money 2) to help me develop skills or career experience. Idgaf about my employer making money (except as it relates to my goals); that's his problem to care about. I'm contracted to provide labor, not make his business profitable for him
- demircancelebi 9y ago
  I think as a professional your job description should include using your skills to improve a critical metric or a process of the business, and this should include using your abilities to contribute in a meaningful way. IMHO, this attitude may be harmful to one's career. In the end, you can always find another job, but would not it be nice to actually care about the business? If you are in a place where you feel like they do not care about you, maybe you should look for something else, but maybe with a more caring approach, because it is a two way street. Just my 2 cents, though.
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    The fact of the matter is, they may not actually care about you. Especially if the money is tight, employers are rare yo actually reward investment into the company.
- wastedhours 9y ago
  > Idgaf about my employer making money Whilst I applaud the sentiment, it's worth remembering that's pretty much the only reason you have a job and can make money. You have a job because you provide the employer with more value than you take - if that equation shifts against you, then you're bang out of luck. If you have easily transferable skills, then maybe you can get away with not caring and jump from place to place, but I'd at least be a little bit mindful of how your role fits into the organisation requirements, unless you want a nasty shock one day.
  - internetman55 9y ago
    That's very true!
bobwaycott 9y ago
It makes perfect sense when one realizes increasing productivity is the single key to extracting maximum surplus value from labor under capitalism. Measuring (and increasing) productivity wasn’t invented for workers.
- bachmeier 9y ago
  We're learning that in the debates over public education funding. For some reason, at least in the US, public education is justified if and only if it creates a more productive workforce. Why the government should subsidize the cost of training employees is rarely stated (probably for a good reason).
  - dorgo 9y ago
    Maybe educated emploers pay more taxes?
  - bobwaycott 9y ago
    Well, of course. People aren’t educated for happiness, or even to be better humans. They are educated to standards that meet the expectations of the work place, since nearly all members of society will live to sell themselves for wages (unless they join the ranks of capitalists). Capital requires an always-ready labor pool whose numbers exceed available employment. It helps keep constant downward pressure on wages. It also ensures people who aren’t hired—or are fired—are available the next time capital needs to put them to work to create more capital. Mass education can’t be effectively sold to the People as the thing that enables them to become a wage slave. However, capital has long convinced the state to take an interest in economic growth at nearly all costs, so the state doesn’t even question the ways in which it is employed by capital to secure new markets, more labor, and more capital. That said, it obviously isn’t education that creates a more productive workforce alone—but it makes for an effective bludgeon with which certain interests can beat back efforts to teach things that aren’t considered to be job-relevant. Education merely produces the raw human material capital can put to work to create more capital, without having to shoulder the cost/time burden itself. The extent to which capital successfully externalizes costs onto society at large is quite impressive.

internetman55 9y ago

Really makes you wonder why people don't value themselves. Does society systematically strip the underclass of their self-esteem? Every single job I've had I knew that the purpose was either 1) to make me money 2) to help me develop skills or career experience. Idgaf about my employer making money (except as it relates to my goals); that's his problem to care about. I'm contracted to provide labor, not make his business profitable for him

demircancelebi 9y ago
I think as a professional your job description should include using your skills to improve a critical metric or a process of the business, and this should include using your abilities to contribute in a meaningful way. IMHO, this attitude may be harmful to one's career. In the end, you can always find another job, but would not it be nice to actually care about the business? If you are in a place where you feel like they do not care about you, maybe you should look for something else, but maybe with a more caring approach, because it is a two way street. Just my 2 cents, though.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  The fact of the matter is, they may not actually care about you. Especially if the money is tight, employers are rare yo actually reward investment into the company.
wastedhours 9y ago
> Idgaf about my employer making money Whilst I applaud the sentiment, it's worth remembering that's pretty much the only reason you have a job and can make money. You have a job because you provide the employer with more value than you take - if that equation shifts against you, then you're bang out of luck. If you have easily transferable skills, then maybe you can get away with not caring and jump from place to place, but I'd at least be a little bit mindful of how your role fits into the organisation requirements, unless you want a nasty shock one day.
- internetman55 9y ago
  That's very true!

bobwaycott 9y ago

It makes perfect sense when one realizes increasing productivity is the single key to extracting maximum surplus value from labor under capitalism. Measuring (and increasing) productivity wasn’t invented for workers.

bachmeier 9y ago
We're learning that in the debates over public education funding. For some reason, at least in the US, public education is justified if and only if it creates a more productive workforce. Why the government should subsidize the cost of training employees is rarely stated (probably for a good reason).
- dorgo 9y ago
  Maybe educated emploers pay more taxes?
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  Well, of course. People aren’t educated for happiness, or even to be better humans. They are educated to standards that meet the expectations of the work place, since nearly all members of society will live to sell themselves for wages (unless they join the ranks of capitalists). Capital requires an always-ready labor pool whose numbers exceed available employment. It helps keep constant downward pressure on wages. It also ensures people who aren’t hired—or are fired—are available the next time capital needs to put them to work to create more capital. Mass education can’t be effectively sold to the People as the thing that enables them to become a wage slave. However, capital has long convinced the state to take an interest in economic growth at nearly all costs, so the state doesn’t even question the ways in which it is employed by capital to secure new markets, more labor, and more capital. That said, it obviously isn’t education that creates a more productive workforce alone—but it makes for an effective bludgeon with which certain interests can beat back efforts to teach things that aren’t considered to be job-relevant. Education merely produces the raw human material capital can put to work to create more capital, without having to shoulder the cost/time burden itself. The extent to which capital successfully externalizes costs onto society at large is quite impressive.