4 ms·

If a company sets objective standards that 80% of its hires can meet, then 20% of its hires will either quit, or struggle desperately to meet the standard for h

If a company sets objective standards that 80% of its hires can meet, then 20% of its hires will either quit, or struggle desperately to meet the standard for however long the company waits before it fires them. These articles are basically about that 20% (or 10%, or 40%, or whatever fraction is unable--for physical, intellectual, social, or other reasons--to do the job as programmed into Amazon's computers). In the past, there was no algorithm, just the fuzzy judgment of the first-line manager. That had its own problems, and was the entry point for lots of racism, sexism, and other discriminatory behavior. It probably shortened the "struggle desperately" phase, though. Workers might get sympathy and lighter duties, or might get promptly fired; but few managers could stomach watching them struggle for so long. Aside: Fun to watch privileged tech workers lament conditions that most humans on the planet would consider paradise. It's not a good job; but to throw words like "slavery" around in this context seems grossly disrespectful of the genuine horrors that exist even today.

kadenshep 8y ago
>but to throw words like "slavery" around in this context seems grossly disrespectful No it isn't.
- tripletao 8y ago
  You edited my comment selectively--"of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Here is one example: http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2102498/tackling-slavery-thai-fishing-industry-one-victim http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/artic... Do you really see no difference between that and an Amazon warehouse? If the Amazon job is "slavery", then what word would you use for the guy chained up on a Thai fishing boat? I am asking this not to minimize the unpleasantness of working for Amazon, but to preserve the gravity of a word whose meaning is among the worst human evils.
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    I didn't edit anything, what?
    - tripletao 8y ago
      You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Those make it clear that I think the use of "slavery" is wrong here not because it slanders Jeff Bezos or American enterprise or whatever, but because it conflates (a) a bad job--accepted on the open market, by people in a country with a safety net that while imperfect almost never lets people starve to death--with (b) taking people with force or deception, making them work, and keeping them even if they want to leave, under threat of physical violence. Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Is there a word that you use to mean (b) that doesn't include (a)? How do you think that guy on the Thai fishing boat would feel, if he saw the Amazon warehouse and was told it was "slavery"?
      - kadenshep 8y ago
        >You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Um, okay. My response still stands. >Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Yeah, because I think most people are intelligent enough to understand that the situations are not equatable. The word is still correct to use.
        tripletao 8y ago
        So for calibration: What fraction of American workers would you consider to be slaves? What do you think distinguishes a slave from a non-slave? Is it the pay? The working conditions? It's not just the discipline and the long hours, unless you think that soldiers (and junior investment bankers) are slaves. Might the same conditions be slavery or not, depending on the pay? Given a job description, how do I determine if it's slavery? And how sure are you that you could look that guy from the boat in the eye, and tell him that yes, the workers in those warehouses are slaves, same as he was? (Did you read the story I linked? Look at the pictures, and count everyone who died?) How many people have you met who have spent time under conditions far beyond what American labor law could imagine? I'm wasting my time belaboring this. You ignore most of my questions, and I doubt I'll change your mind. The casual use of a such a heavy word just bothers me. If we waste our strongest language on ordinary wrongs, and then the worst comes, then what words will we have left to express it?
jrw2 8y ago
Your perspective only has merit when society offers opportunities to remedy failed situations with the values you support as solutions. If you can't prove it, then logic without empathy makes us complicit in evil.

kadenshep 8y ago

>but to throw words like "slavery" around in this context seems grossly disrespectful No it isn't.

tripletao 8y ago
You edited my comment selectively--"of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Here is one example: http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2102498/tackling-slavery-thai-fishing-industry-one-victim http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/artic... Do you really see no difference between that and an Amazon warehouse? If the Amazon job is "slavery", then what word would you use for the guy chained up on a Thai fishing boat? I am asking this not to minimize the unpleasantness of working for Amazon, but to preserve the gravity of a word whose meaning is among the worst human evils.
- kadenshep 8y ago
  I didn't edit anything, what?
  - tripletao 8y ago
    You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Those make it clear that I think the use of "slavery" is wrong here not because it slanders Jeff Bezos or American enterprise or whatever, but because it conflates (a) a bad job--accepted on the open market, by people in a country with a safety net that while imperfect almost never lets people starve to death--with (b) taking people with force or deception, making them work, and keeping them even if they want to leave, under threat of physical violence. Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Is there a word that you use to mean (b) that doesn't include (a)? How do you think that guy on the Thai fishing boat would feel, if he saw the Amazon warehouse and was told it was "slavery"?
    - kadenshep 8y ago
      >You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Um, okay. My response still stands. >Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Yeah, because I think most people are intelligent enough to understand that the situations are not equatable. The word is still correct to use.
      - tripletao 8y ago
        So for calibration: What fraction of American workers would you consider to be slaves? What do you think distinguishes a slave from a non-slave? Is it the pay? The working conditions? It's not just the discipline and the long hours, unless you think that soldiers (and junior investment bankers) are slaves. Might the same conditions be slavery or not, depending on the pay? Given a job description, how do I determine if it's slavery? And how sure are you that you could look that guy from the boat in the eye, and tell him that yes, the workers in those warehouses are slaves, same as he was? (Did you read the story I linked? Look at the pictures, and count everyone who died?) How many people have you met who have spent time under conditions far beyond what American labor law could imagine? I'm wasting my time belaboring this. You ignore most of my questions, and I doubt I'll change your mind. The casual use of a such a heavy word just bothers me. If we waste our strongest language on ordinary wrongs, and then the worst comes, then what words will we have left to express it?

jrw2 8y ago

Your perspective only has merit when society offers opportunities to remedy failed situations with the values you support as solutions. If you can't prove it, then logic without empathy makes us complicit in evil.