4 ms·

They are low value workers. They don’t get job security. That’s the reality of it. They are replaceable with people with no experience. They have to understand

They are low value workers. They don’t get job security. That’s the reality of it. They are replaceable with people with no experience. They have to understand that. There’s no job security to waiters either or Uber drivers. Just because they work in a datacenter doesn’t mean they deserve more money for a low value job. If they want a full time job, they need to elevate themselves. Educate yourself, get a degree, find a new job, become management etc. Lots of paths to job security. Just because people want job security doesn’t mean they deserve it.

thethethethe 5y ago
Why do you have so little compassion for people? Just because a person has "low value" skills doesn't mean we _have_ to treat them like they are disposable. These "low skill" jobs are critical to the function of society and the people that do them deserve respect, security, and acknowledgment.
- plank_time 5y ago
  I’ve worked a ton of low value jobs. I’ve worked in factories, as a receptionist, as a secretary, in a bank, etc. I never felt that I deserved to make more money just because it was compassionate to give me more. I understood exactly where I stood and why I was being paid. That’s what motivated me to study my ass off and work hard at my job and elevate myself. Some people are okay with not working harder and making what they do. Half my close friends are like that. That’s great and I don’t look down on them. But I don’t think they need to make more money “just because.” It’s whatever the market bears.
  - thethethethe 5y ago
    I think you are letting your personal experience with "low value" jobs cloud your vision in this situation. Its great that you worked your way out and I am sure you deserve whatever position you are in now. However, I think there is some survivorship bias at play here. > I understood exactly where I stood and why I was being paid. I am sure that the people in the article know this as well, but that doesn't mean they are treated fairly. The way society is structured and businesses treat people is not just by default. If this was the case, there should be no worker protections and we should simply pay people "what they are worth", which, in the past, resulted in factory towns and child labor. Nobody in the article is demanding more money by arguing it is the compassionate thing to do, they want pay _parity_ with their coworkers who do the same job, which is pretty different in my opinion. They also want to keep their jobs after 2 years instead of getting fired for basically no reason other than it saves Google money through a regulation loophole. > I don’t think they need to make more money “just because.” It’s whatever the market bears. We do not live in a free market economy by any means. The reason why these people are being treated so badly is because of a poorly thought out regulation. Acting as though the system is a "free market" is just an indirect way of justify oppression of workers under the current mixed market system
lhorie 5y ago
> If they want a full time job, they need to elevate themselves This suggestion only makes sense until it doesn't. Suppose everyone actually took that advice. Then you'd have an entire population of overqualified people who cannot find jobs that are appropriate to their skill level and who still have to take crappy jobs. Paradoxically, maybe even you are one of them. Then what? Now consider that this upleveling actually does happen for many people, and yet the issue of risk of financial ruin continues to exist for the bottom rungs in perpetuity. Also, the point about deserving feels a bit myopic. Does someone deserve to be so poor that their family ends up resorting to tax funded programs like unemployment benefits, or worse, they turn to stealing, landing in jail and imposing a $40k tax burden per head on the rest of the population? If the money flows from big corps to privileged highly paid workers pockets to the IRS to govt-run programs, why not just route the money directly to the less privileged so govt programs are less needed in the first place? The status quo is really not that different from Omelas[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > Then you'd have an entire population of overqualified people who cannot find jobs Why would you? In the time it takes to train, those jobs could be created; if some of those workers become business owners, for example.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    You still need someone to pick your potatoes in the farm for you. If everyone has white collar skills, then that means one of two things: 1) white collar jobs don't pay as much comparatively to blue collar (meaning your supermarket potatoes now cost $50 due to high labor costs because there's no supply of workers) 2) people with white collar skills cannot find white collar jobs and are forced to take low pay blue collar jobs so that they can put food on the table, while you can continue to enjoy $1 potatoes. The latter is actually how the world works now: there are people w/ master degrees doing Uber, actors working on starbucks, etc. One can argue that most adults are in fact overqualified for physical labor: they can read and write and do math, which are arguably "higher level" skills than what is required for those jobs (cf. farming in the feudal ages).

thethethethe 5y ago

Why do you have so little compassion for people? Just because a person has "low value" skills doesn't mean we _have_ to treat them like they are disposable. These "low skill" jobs are critical to the function of society and the people that do them deserve respect, security, and acknowledgment.

plank_time 5y ago
I’ve worked a ton of low value jobs. I’ve worked in factories, as a receptionist, as a secretary, in a bank, etc. I never felt that I deserved to make more money just because it was compassionate to give me more. I understood exactly where I stood and why I was being paid. That’s what motivated me to study my ass off and work hard at my job and elevate myself. Some people are okay with not working harder and making what they do. Half my close friends are like that. That’s great and I don’t look down on them. But I don’t think they need to make more money “just because.” It’s whatever the market bears.
- thethethethe 5y ago
  I think you are letting your personal experience with "low value" jobs cloud your vision in this situation. Its great that you worked your way out and I am sure you deserve whatever position you are in now. However, I think there is some survivorship bias at play here. > I understood exactly where I stood and why I was being paid. I am sure that the people in the article know this as well, but that doesn't mean they are treated fairly. The way society is structured and businesses treat people is not just by default. If this was the case, there should be no worker protections and we should simply pay people "what they are worth", which, in the past, resulted in factory towns and child labor. Nobody in the article is demanding more money by arguing it is the compassionate thing to do, they want pay _parity_ with their coworkers who do the same job, which is pretty different in my opinion. They also want to keep their jobs after 2 years instead of getting fired for basically no reason other than it saves Google money through a regulation loophole. > I don’t think they need to make more money “just because.” It’s whatever the market bears. We do not live in a free market economy by any means. The reason why these people are being treated so badly is because of a poorly thought out regulation. Acting as though the system is a "free market" is just an indirect way of justify oppression of workers under the current mixed market system

lhorie 5y ago

> If they want a full time job, they need to elevate themselves This suggestion only makes sense until it doesn't. Suppose everyone actually took that advice. Then you'd have an entire population of overqualified people who cannot find jobs that are appropriate to their skill level and who still have to take crappy jobs. Paradoxically, maybe even you are one of them. Then what? Now consider that this upleveling actually does happen for many people, and yet the issue of risk of financial ruin continues to exist for the bottom rungs in perpetuity. Also, the point about deserving feels a bit myopic. Does someone deserve to be so poor that their family ends up resorting to tax funded programs like unemployment benefits, or worse, they turn to stealing, landing in jail and imposing a $40k tax burden per head on the rest of the population? If the money flows from big corps to privileged highly paid workers pockets to the IRS to govt-run programs, why not just route the money directly to the less privileged so govt programs are less needed in the first place? The status quo is really not that different from Omelas[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Chris2048 5y ago
> Then you'd have an entire population of overqualified people who cannot find jobs Why would you? In the time it takes to train, those jobs could be created; if some of those workers become business owners, for example.
- lhorie 5y ago
  You still need someone to pick your potatoes in the farm for you. If everyone has white collar skills, then that means one of two things: 1) white collar jobs don't pay as much comparatively to blue collar (meaning your supermarket potatoes now cost $50 due to high labor costs because there's no supply of workers) 2) people with white collar skills cannot find white collar jobs and are forced to take low pay blue collar jobs so that they can put food on the table, while you can continue to enjoy $1 potatoes. The latter is actually how the world works now: there are people w/ master degrees doing Uber, actors working on starbucks, etc. One can argue that most adults are in fact overqualified for physical labor: they can read and write and do math, which are arguably "higher level" skills than what is required for those jobs (cf. farming in the feudal ages).