4 ms·

My comment is precisely that the people who are actually responsible for your problems are shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or au

by wyager 5y ago

My comment is precisely that the people who are actually responsible for your problems are shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
What are you suggesting, that without telephones, you can beat the front line worker up, in hopes that he'll get mad and beat his boss up, and the violence will continue up the chain until it reaches the person responsible?
- wyager 5y ago
  No, not at all. I’m suggesting that the level of structural abstraction is a problem precisely because it prevents people from directing their rage where it actually matters.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Suppose your hypothetical was true, and whenever you had a grievance you would speak directly to an c-suite officer. What makes you think the corporate officer in question wouldn't take preventive measures to protect themselves from violence? Business in sketchy neighborhoods place their employees/cash register behind bulletproof glass to prevent this exact issue. If a small business can afford that kind of stuff to protect their minimum wage employee, I'm sure c-suite officers of multinational corporations can afford something equal or better.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wyager 5y ago
      If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers. And of course I'm not literally proposing that people go and beat up execs; I'm just pointing out that for basically however long human civilization has existed, the scale was such that you always knew who, specifically, was causing you problems. Now it's all hidden behind a bunch of bullshit.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers Maybe? That might nudge execs into providing better customer service experience, but if I were an exec I sure as hell am not going to let my well-being depend on good customer experience alone. Eventually you're going to get a crazed lunatic that good customer service can't defuse, and for that reason I'm going to still require physical barriers and/or armed bodyguards.
- mjevans 5y ago
  Translation for ya: Viva la Revolution - IE Off with the aristocrat's heads, is far less likely these days for lots of reasons. Though neither the parent author, nor I, are advocating for that response, I'm using it as an extreme to tug your frame of focus along the correct discussion axis. The least of which is that the super wealthy have both private and public security forces on speed dial. Even minor protest groups or 'gentleman's disputes' like a more basic bare assault of vigilante protest are also off the table. There is no available check against uncouth behavior which violates the social and moral expectations.
  - gruez 5y ago
    But how does that have anything to do with being "shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems"? If you really have a grievance against Chime's CEO or whatever, you can still inflict violence on them. Look up their corporate office address, procure a weapon, wait outside until they leave work, and then do... whatever. There are many reasons why we don't see people inflict violence on "the people who are actually responsible for your problems", but it's not because of "minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems".

by wyager 5y ago

My comment is precisely that the people who are actually responsible for your problems are shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

What are you suggesting, that without telephones, you can beat the front line worker up, in hopes that he'll get mad and beat his boss up, and the violence will continue up the chain until it reaches the person responsible?

wyager 5y ago
No, not at all. I’m suggesting that the level of structural abstraction is a problem precisely because it prevents people from directing their rage where it actually matters.
- gruez 5y ago
  Suppose your hypothetical was true, and whenever you had a grievance you would speak directly to an c-suite officer. What makes you think the corporate officer in question wouldn't take preventive measures to protect themselves from violence? Business in sketchy neighborhoods place their employees/cash register behind bulletproof glass to prevent this exact issue. If a small business can afford that kind of stuff to protect their minimum wage employee, I'm sure c-suite officers of multinational corporations can afford something equal or better.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wyager 5y ago
    If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers. And of course I'm not literally proposing that people go and beat up execs; I'm just pointing out that for basically however long human civilization has existed, the scale was such that you always knew who, specifically, was causing you problems. Now it's all hidden behind a bunch of bullshit.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers Maybe? That might nudge execs into providing better customer service experience, but if I were an exec I sure as hell am not going to let my well-being depend on good customer experience alone. Eventually you're going to get a crazed lunatic that good customer service can't defuse, and for that reason I'm going to still require physical barriers and/or armed bodyguards.
mjevans 5y ago
Translation for ya: Viva la Revolution - IE Off with the aristocrat's heads, is far less likely these days for lots of reasons. Though neither the parent author, nor I, are advocating for that response, I'm using it as an extreme to tug your frame of focus along the correct discussion axis. The least of which is that the super wealthy have both private and public security forces on speed dial. Even minor protest groups or 'gentleman's disputes' like a more basic bare assault of vigilante protest are also off the table. There is no available check against uncouth behavior which violates the social and moral expectations.
- gruez 5y ago
  But how does that have anything to do with being "shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems"? If you really have a grievance against Chime's CEO or whatever, you can still inflict violence on them. Look up their corporate office address, procure a weapon, wait outside until they leave work, and then do... whatever. There are many reasons why we don't see people inflict violence on "the people who are actually responsible for your problems", but it's not because of "minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems".