4 ms·
Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it.
by throwaway2048 8y ago
Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it. "Need" is relative. Programmers don't "need" to work 80 hour weeks, but if it's the difference between getting paid $80,000 and $160,000, some people will choose the longer hours, and there isn't inherently anything wrong with that. So why is it wrong when someone whose base salary is $25,000 makes the same choice?
- throwaway2048 8y agobecause the programmer has a real choice to choose to make less money, and not work as much, at a different job. The person who's base sallary is $25,000 has no choice to work a different job for less money, esp when every job is making the same demands (you could be 100% certan every service job would be)
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoHow does the lower wage person not have the same choice? Working 40 hours pays $25,000, working 80 hours pays $50,000. Why should a person not have this choice?
- umanwizard 8y agoYes, but there’s no obvious way to solve that problem.
- golergka 8y agoSome people just don't have anything significant value to offer for the society. IQ follows a normal distribution, half is below 100 and 15% is below 85. These are not the people that can produce any products or services that you would be interested in enough to pay them a lot of money. It's not the "system's" property, just a natural consequence of what products and services we want.
- throwaway2048 8y agoacting like the system we have now is some kind of natural inevitability is a real laugh.