3 ms·

OK, OK. I am a supporter of of UBI, but let's not make it sound like ICs are the victims that are tolerating the abuse, working for peanuts, or otherwise they w

OK, OK. I am a supporter of of UBI, but let's not make it sound like ICs are the victims that are tolerating the abuse, working for peanuts, or otherwise they will starve. Lots of ICs are also self-serving morons. It's not like the managers designed crap solutions, wrote the crap code, and are the cause of barely anything working, at least not directly. My point was mostly that the whole point of hiring managers (and often paying them more than ICs) was to get some people work on optimizing the productivity, making sure best ICs stay and can be effective, and help in various ways ones that are not as solid (possibly yet). By reliably failing to do so, what's the point of having them in the first place, and even more so - holding them in such a high esteem, paying them more, and having so many of them around.

cupofpython 4y ago
>what's the point of having them in the first place, to increase company size and keep more people in the world fed. without them, that money just goes into the CEO's pocket anyway. >paying them more, this i disagree with as well. Money should be way better allocated to the people keeping the company alive since everyones dinner depends on them. But overall a company should hire as many people as it can afford. have them work from home and do almost nothing most of the time. pay them the least in the company. Usually these discussions leave out what happens when people dont have jobs at all, which would happen to a lot of people if companies were run optimally and morons were fired. Do we let them die so that we can buy yachts? I dont think we should all die together if we cant save everyone, but I do think we should be working to maximize the number of "free loaders" our country can support and viewing that as a signal of strength. I also believe if we remove all these people who are better off as free loaders from the workforce, that companies would become more productive overall, not less. There is this belief that everyone would just stop working if they didnt need to and nothing would get done. I dont buy it. Absolute worst case scenario we could have a draft and use the military to fill the gaps in the workforce lol

cupofpython 4y ago

>what's the point of having them in the first place, to increase company size and keep more people in the world fed. without them, that money just goes into the CEO's pocket anyway. >paying them more, this i disagree with as well. Money should be way better allocated to the people keeping the company alive since everyones dinner depends on them. But overall a company should hire as many people as it can afford. have them work from home and do almost nothing most of the time. pay them the least in the company. Usually these discussions leave out what happens when people dont have jobs at all, which would happen to a lot of people if companies were run optimally and morons were fired. Do we let them die so that we can buy yachts? I dont think we should all die together if we cant save everyone, but I do think we should be working to maximize the number of "free loaders" our country can support and viewing that as a signal of strength. I also believe if we remove all these people who are better off as free loaders from the workforce, that companies would become more productive overall, not less. There is this belief that everyone would just stop working if they didnt need to and nothing would get done. I dont buy it. Absolute worst case scenario we could have a draft and use the military to fill the gaps in the workforce lol