5 ms·

Less binarism please, some work is an option. Many work well beyond their base expenses; they actively trade personal and family time to further their career a

Less binarism please, some work is an option. Many work well beyond their base expenses; they actively trade personal and family time to further their career and bank balance. That's fine if they want that but it's not bad to take stock of what's important and redress that balance over your lifetime. That said, the people here handling receipts are likely not earning enough to work less.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Why don’t they get another job? These people are inept and blame situations like getting cancer on their job? Healthcare plans not a thing, or Obamacare not existing? > Yes freedom!!!! From taxes (for the rich) and unions and the freedom to be forced into bankruptcy because you made the grave mistake of getting cancer. Base means isn’t forward thinking, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have enough money but what if they wants to give to do more? If you taxed estates to 100% what do you think would happen?
- smus 5y ago
  > Why don’t they get another job? These people are inept and blame situations like getting cancer on their job? You're suggesting that the entire service class get another job not in the service class? So now there's no more restaurants, fast food or otherwise, in the US? No more garbage men? If you agree that those jobs are essential to society's functioning, then don't you think we should treat and compensate them accordingly? It doesn't seem like your position is well thought out.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Is your position thought out or factual? Garbage men are well paid, why did you assume otherwise? >The average hourly pay for a Garbage Man is $17.68. Visit PayScale to research garbage man hourly pay by city, experience, skill, employer and more. I know college educated people who work at restaurants because they made more money there. I haven’t eaten at a restaurant, and COVID closed many, is it really essential?
    - gokdisjtrdcvv5 5y ago
      > I haven’t eaten at a restaurant, and COVID closed many, is it really essential? Did you really just say that we should shut down all restaurants? I’m assuming not so it would be nice if you could explain more.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        Where did you get that or “all”? They aren’t essential and I don’t care what happens to them the same way I don’t care about bars I never went to shutting down.
    - smus 5y ago
      Wow, 36k a year! What a livable wage! Even your cherry picked example doesn't really prove your point, but the vast majority of other service workers are treated worse. And if you're truly arguing society could function if we just deleted all jobs with poor working conditions, you're delusional. We haven't even mentioned factory workers in Asia yet.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  This and its follow ups are a worrying stream of consciousness and I'm not entirely sure what I said that you're trying to connect with. > These people are inept and blame situations Which people? People working service? As the thread goes, we can't just delete those roles, pay everyone enough to work less and expect our economy to function as it does. We rely on people having shitty jobs both locally and overseas to make our dream work. We can't get by on unicorn farts. Which is to say there will always be somebody working every hour of the day in these dead-end jobs, reading messages on hacked printers telling them they should just work less... But they don't have that choice. They can't get good because education and opportunity are neither free, instant or even guaranteed. Nobody here is blaming anybody for that, I just think you don't understand how the world works. > if they wants to give to do more? This is at the other end of my argument, people actually being able to work less in their high-paying careers. This isn't affected by your theoretical monster taxes or them suddenly really wanting a yacht. If cost of living goes up, the sums change and they need to weigh things up again.
burnafter189 5y ago
To add to this: I work as a janitor, I can do the whole of my job in about 5 hours. I'm scheduled for 8 hours through the weekdays. 95% of the time when I show up is totally unimportant, nonetheless I'm still beholden to the schedule. Given that I do choose to complete the work in 5 hours, I've got about 3 hours where I have to doddle around doing either worthless make-work, or I sit on my ass in which case work becomes closer kin to a prison. And the latter is kinda breaking the rules, which is a concern because where I work now, and at basically every other facility I've worked in the last 10 years, has a surveillance system. If I leave early, I take a loss in pay and open myself to a haranguing; or I spent pretty limited vacation to paper it over - both of those cases are, frankly, bullshit. There's also just some really silly technicalities like waiting for the clock to turn to the point where it will round over. If the job is done, why make people wait an extra few minutes instead of manually entering and paying them on the per-diem basis? Who knows, maybe they can dodge traffic, which turns into a non-linear function which saves them 15 minutes. In my case, leaving 3 hours early when possible, leaves me with a lot of different options, like actually being able to study for school so I don't have to become a travelling carpet salesman. On the other side, which seems to be the dominant trend, my employer would just increase the volume of work exploiting me for 8 hours at no gain. But hypothetically I could be paid per job: one clean facility being equivalent to 8-hours worth of pay. And if we take such a scenario, that means I'd be working about 25-30 hours, which is below revised the "full-time" standard, meaning that HR could presumably rescind my benefits package and other sorts of recourse. And ultimately that sort of behavior is selected for, it "saves" the company money. A bias towards the short run, certainly, which ultimately makes the bottom line leary of sticking around. I guess that's ultimately of no concern, somebody most certainly did the math and fingered out that high turnover is cheaper than well-trained, and highly capable long-term staff. Now if we work from the logic that all of this is a fiction, from the schedule, to the time, to the considerations of the job title, it becomes pretty easy to see how it could be much more dynamic just by offering certain bargaining abilities to both employers and employees. In that scenario, there are a lot of historical indicators that point towards exploitative behavior the asymmetry between an employer and an employee is considerable. That's a cultural thing, that's what happens when you use the Hobbesian framework, when you institute acquisitive behavior as the selection parameter for social success. This is exacerbated by bureaucratic processes and arbitrary hierarchies which can extend the whole world over. Even further by creating a class of leadership that is so far removed from the daily considerations of 95% of people, so insulated from want, struggle, oppression, and legitimate work in many cases, that they simply don't seem to comprehend. It shouldn't be construed from that, that I'm saying it's purely a sociomechanical feature, necessarily. But it could also be psychopathy, or Dark Triad selection pressures, or some other form of rare derangement any of which in a state of nature would probably be maladaptive. Probably the worst part of it is that the Hobbesian mode seems to be derived from observations made in the Mediterranean and Europe which really plainly from the modern perspective aren't representative of a realistic state of nature, and are instead inductive assumptions which we have overwhelmingly shaped ourselves into by assuming we're inherently greedy, that the state of affairs, hierarchy and complexes of control are an intrinsic necessity. The irony in that, is that given the Hobbesian proposition, no matter what state of affairs we erect it's liable to be corrupted by exploitative greed - and the state itself is a mechanism which holds by its nature the greatest conceivable risk. This all feeds into a system where workers without the leverage to negotiate are constantly entrenched in a lowest-bidder situation which is patently ineffective in basically every category for the lowest common denominator. It concretes the standard hourly wage and set schedule, enforces the modal office worker. And if "Bullshit Jobs" is any indicator, there's a considerable amount of labor involved in keeping this shit turning that ultimately results in a net-negative not only for the individual, but probably through additive and multiplicative emergent processes - exponentially for society. And it's quickly adding up to nothing for most of us in myriad ways.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

Why don’t they get another job? These people are inept and blame situations like getting cancer on their job? Healthcare plans not a thing, or Obamacare not existing? > Yes freedom!!!! From taxes (for the rich) and unions and the freedom to be forced into bankruptcy because you made the grave mistake of getting cancer. Base means isn’t forward thinking, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have enough money but what if they wants to give to do more? If you taxed estates to 100% what do you think would happen?

smus 5y ago
> Why don’t they get another job? These people are inept and blame situations like getting cancer on their job? You're suggesting that the entire service class get another job not in the service class? So now there's no more restaurants, fast food or otherwise, in the US? No more garbage men? If you agree that those jobs are essential to society's functioning, then don't you think we should treat and compensate them accordingly? It doesn't seem like your position is well thought out.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Is your position thought out or factual? Garbage men are well paid, why did you assume otherwise? >The average hourly pay for a Garbage Man is $17.68. Visit PayScale to research garbage man hourly pay by city, experience, skill, employer and more. I know college educated people who work at restaurants because they made more money there. I haven’t eaten at a restaurant, and COVID closed many, is it really essential?
  - gokdisjtrdcvv5 5y ago
    > I haven’t eaten at a restaurant, and COVID closed many, is it really essential? Did you really just say that we should shut down all restaurants? I’m assuming not so it would be nice if you could explain more.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Where did you get that or “all”? They aren’t essential and I don’t care what happens to them the same way I don’t care about bars I never went to shutting down.
  - smus 5y ago
    Wow, 36k a year! What a livable wage! Even your cherry picked example doesn't really prove your point, but the vast majority of other service workers are treated worse. And if you're truly arguing society could function if we just deleted all jobs with poor working conditions, you're delusional. We haven't even mentioned factory workers in Asia yet.
oliwarner 5y ago
This and its follow ups are a worrying stream of consciousness and I'm not entirely sure what I said that you're trying to connect with. > These people are inept and blame situations Which people? People working service? As the thread goes, we can't just delete those roles, pay everyone enough to work less and expect our economy to function as it does. We rely on people having shitty jobs both locally and overseas to make our dream work. We can't get by on unicorn farts. Which is to say there will always be somebody working every hour of the day in these dead-end jobs, reading messages on hacked printers telling them they should just work less... But they don't have that choice. They can't get good because education and opportunity are neither free, instant or even guaranteed. Nobody here is blaming anybody for that, I just think you don't understand how the world works. > if they wants to give to do more? This is at the other end of my argument, people actually being able to work less in their high-paying careers. This isn't affected by your theoretical monster taxes or them suddenly really wanting a yacht. If cost of living goes up, the sums change and they need to weigh things up again.

burnafter189 5y ago

To add to this: I work as a janitor, I can do the whole of my job in about 5 hours. I'm scheduled for 8 hours through the weekdays. 95% of the time when I show up is totally unimportant, nonetheless I'm still beholden to the schedule. Given that I do choose to complete the work in 5 hours, I've got about 3 hours where I have to doddle around doing either worthless make-work, or I sit on my ass in which case work becomes closer kin to a prison. And the latter is kinda breaking the rules, which is a concern because where I work now, and at basically every other facility I've worked in the last 10 years, has a surveillance system. If I leave early, I take a loss in pay and open myself to a haranguing; or I spent pretty limited vacation to paper it over - both of those cases are, frankly, bullshit. There's also just some really silly technicalities like waiting for the clock to turn to the point where it will round over. If the job is done, why make people wait an extra few minutes instead of manually entering and paying them on the per-diem basis? Who knows, maybe they can dodge traffic, which turns into a non-linear function which saves them 15 minutes. In my case, leaving 3 hours early when possible, leaves me with a lot of different options, like actually being able to study for school so I don't have to become a travelling carpet salesman. On the other side, which seems to be the dominant trend, my employer would just increase the volume of work exploiting me for 8 hours at no gain. But hypothetically I could be paid per job: one clean facility being equivalent to 8-hours worth of pay. And if we take such a scenario, that means I'd be working about 25-30 hours, which is below revised the "full-time" standard, meaning that HR could presumably rescind my benefits package and other sorts of recourse. And ultimately that sort of behavior is selected for, it "saves" the company money. A bias towards the short run, certainly, which ultimately makes the bottom line leary of sticking around. I guess that's ultimately of no concern, somebody most certainly did the math and fingered out that high turnover is cheaper than well-trained, and highly capable long-term staff. Now if we work from the logic that all of this is a fiction, from the schedule, to the time, to the considerations of the job title, it becomes pretty easy to see how it could be much more dynamic just by offering certain bargaining abilities to both employers and employees. In that scenario, there are a lot of historical indicators that point towards exploitative behavior the asymmetry between an employer and an employee is considerable. That's a cultural thing, that's what happens when you use the Hobbesian framework, when you institute acquisitive behavior as the selection parameter for social success. This is exacerbated by bureaucratic processes and arbitrary hierarchies which can extend the whole world over. Even further by creating a class of leadership that is so far removed from the daily considerations of 95% of people, so insulated from want, struggle, oppression, and legitimate work in many cases, that they simply don't seem to comprehend. It shouldn't be construed from that, that I'm saying it's purely a sociomechanical feature, necessarily. But it could also be psychopathy, or Dark Triad selection pressures, or some other form of rare derangement any of which in a state of nature would probably be maladaptive. Probably the worst part of it is that the Hobbesian mode seems to be derived from observations made in the Mediterranean and Europe which really plainly from the modern perspective aren't representative of a realistic state of nature, and are instead inductive assumptions which we have overwhelmingly shaped ourselves into by assuming we're inherently greedy, that the state of affairs, hierarchy and complexes of control are an intrinsic necessity. The irony in that, is that given the Hobbesian proposition, no matter what state of affairs we erect it's liable to be corrupted by exploitative greed - and the state itself is a mechanism which holds by its nature the greatest conceivable risk. This all feeds into a system where workers without the leverage to negotiate are constantly entrenched in a lowest-bidder situation which is patently ineffective in basically every category for the lowest common denominator. It concretes the standard hourly wage and set schedule, enforces the modal office worker. And if "Bullshit Jobs" is any indicator, there's a considerable amount of labor involved in keeping this shit turning that ultimately results in a net-negative not only for the individual, but probably through additive and multiplicative emergent processes - exponentially for society. And it's quickly adding up to nothing for most of us in myriad ways.