3 ms·

Your literally arguing that 'Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is not relevant' ... and then you provide a bunch of data points to try to prove 'job

Your literally arguing that 'Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is not relevant' ... and then you provide a bunch of data points to try to prove 'job happiness' one way or the other, as though it's relevant? You arguing the sky is blue, and then not blue in the next sentence? Which is it? ... "The summary among all these is that somewhere between 50% and 85% of Americans “hate their jobs” and only around 13% of employees are engaged in their work (not mentally checked out)." This is absolutely false and there is no reading of those five references (3 of which are irrelevant) which indicates this. The data I provided is more nuanced and reveals that even among the 50% that are 'not satisfied' when given an either or choice, most even those are still at least 'somewhat satisfied'. 'Perfect job satisfaction' was never the objective. Less than 10% 'hate their jobs'. ... (People happy at work) "This is not compatible with either common sense observation nor other hard data such as" It is common sense to anyone who's paying attention. Most people are ok with their jobs, and most of the rest are somewhat satisfied - as the data shows. If you need a house, either you work->get money->pay to have it built - or you build it yourself. Clearly, most of us would prefer to be on the beach than do 'work' ... but if you want a house, you have to do 'work' one way or another, most people understand that reality and are fine with it. ... "I also strongly dispute the idea that any part of what I wrote is negativity, not at all. It’s not cynical, not hyperbolic, not an over-generalization. It is a perfectly neutral" Because your position is based on bad facts it is effectively hyperbolic and nihilist.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
> “Your [sic] literally arguing that 'Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is not relevant' ... and then you provide a bunch of data points to try to prove 'job happiness' one way or the other, as though it's relevant?” I have not argued that. I have said that you should consider other reports of someone being happy at a job for reasons other than compensation, benefits or job security as irrelevant because if you infer you’ll be happy based in other factors, which are more easily changed on a whim (thus leading to widespread reported unhappiness at jobs), you set yourself up to make a choice that makes you unhappy. > “You [sic] arguing the sky is blue, and then not blue in the next sentence? Which is it?” It seems you’re in a rush to argue, so I’m going to disengage here. I’ve read and reflected on your comment, re-read your source, my five sources, and the polls they link to, and I am just going to agree to disagree with you. You’re invested in “being right” about this but the data don’t support what you’re saying. The interpretation is not “more nuanced” in this case, and it is only one single study claiming that fewer than 10% hate their jobs, with a methodology that conflicts with the surveys historically used to guage that. I believe you’re wrong, you are responding in a purely reactionary way, and I’m not taking the bait.
- _Tev 8y ago
  > I’ve read and reflected on your comment, re-read your source, my five sources, and the polls they link to, and I am just going to agree to disagree with you. You’re invested in “being right” about this but the data don’t support what you’re saying. Actually I agree with the other poster that your sources are claiming something else or something much weaker than you do. Your claims of "being neutral" and appeals to "common sense" confirm you have extremely negative bias on this matter. And, considering the quote above, completely blind to it. Btw if anyone can actually get some proper data on the topic I would be interested in seeing them. My anecdata are not really decisive in either way.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    The good thing is that it doesn’t matter if you agree or not, nor if I do. The linked sources are listed above, with direct links to the engagement polls from Gallup. Even in light of your comment, I still don’t see any evidence that my view is a negatively biased interpretation. Your comment does read like an ad hominem though, which makes me question your participation in this comment thread. You’re not seeking data, except a throw-away comment at the end that is a bad attempt to undermine the quality of the data already linked in the Gallup polls. You’re seemingly only here to criticize subjective aspects of my reply.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

> “Your [sic] literally arguing that 'Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is not relevant' ... and then you provide a bunch of data points to try to prove 'job happiness' one way or the other, as though it's relevant?” I have not argued that. I have said that you should consider other reports of someone being happy at a job for reasons other than compensation, benefits or job security as irrelevant because if you infer you’ll be happy based in other factors, which are more easily changed on a whim (thus leading to widespread reported unhappiness at jobs), you set yourself up to make a choice that makes you unhappy. > “You [sic] arguing the sky is blue, and then not blue in the next sentence? Which is it?” It seems you’re in a rush to argue, so I’m going to disengage here. I’ve read and reflected on your comment, re-read your source, my five sources, and the polls they link to, and I am just going to agree to disagree with you. You’re invested in “being right” about this but the data don’t support what you’re saying. The interpretation is not “more nuanced” in this case, and it is only one single study claiming that fewer than 10% hate their jobs, with a methodology that conflicts with the surveys historically used to guage that. I believe you’re wrong, you are responding in a purely reactionary way, and I’m not taking the bait.

_Tev 8y ago
> I’ve read and reflected on your comment, re-read your source, my five sources, and the polls they link to, and I am just going to agree to disagree with you. You’re invested in “being right” about this but the data don’t support what you’re saying. Actually I agree with the other poster that your sources are claiming something else or something much weaker than you do. Your claims of "being neutral" and appeals to "common sense" confirm you have extremely negative bias on this matter. And, considering the quote above, completely blind to it. Btw if anyone can actually get some proper data on the topic I would be interested in seeing them. My anecdata are not really decisive in either way.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  The good thing is that it doesn’t matter if you agree or not, nor if I do. The linked sources are listed above, with direct links to the engagement polls from Gallup. Even in light of your comment, I still don’t see any evidence that my view is a negatively biased interpretation. Your comment does read like an ad hominem though, which makes me question your participation in this comment thread. You’re not seeking data, except a throw-away comment at the end that is a bad attempt to undermine the quality of the data already linked in the Gallup polls. You’re seemingly only here to criticize subjective aspects of my reply.