5 ms·

Yeah I agree it's complicated and context is important. Even though I do resent spending the majority of my useful lifespan "working", I don't feel like I'm be

by thunky 4y ago

Yeah I agree it's complicated and context is important. Even though I do resent spending the majority of my useful lifespan "working", I don't feel like I'm being exploited. Rather, I mostly consider myself lucky and privileged to be able to work from the comfort of my home doing an activity that I mostly enjoy for a decent salary. Sure my company overlords make money from the deal, much more than I make, but they're not villians - they're just people that did better than I did and good for me that their quest for money gave me an opportunity to enrich myself. The power imbalance and exploitation you refer to applies to people who aren't so lucky and have to do real labor. I don't that's who we're mainly talking about in this thread. Instead, it's the people that are already lucky and privileged that rationalize deception because they think they deserve even more.

Bakary 4y ago
I can't really respond to this without restating the arguments already made earlier, but ask yourself this: isn't it an odd coincidence that this appraisal of the situation on your end is absolutely ideal for the employer? - It leaves little possibility of advocating for better conditions, even if these might be straightforward to obtain - Makes it more likely to expend additional energy for the employer due to a moral abstraction as opposed to a material or social/societal need - Assigns high moral worth to the employer by virtue of their ownership and higher class. The employee can't merely sign a contract, but must also practice additional gratefulness in favor of the employer - Could potentially lead to monitoring and reporting other workers based on the abstraction of dishonesty, at no material or social gain to either worker involved or any clearly identifiable societal improvement The employer makes far more money, their relationship to work is completely different, they own at least a significant part of the company, belong to a higher social class, and yet both your worldviews regarding work coincide neatly, and do so specifically in favor of only one person in the equation. We could transpose this to a hypothetical Victorian worker. They could say that they are privileged to work 12 hour days because they could also work as a literal slave. That they should show extra diligence for the employer because that God-given hierarchy is natural and wholesome. From our vantage point, this mindset sounds absurd and the result of internalized oppression, but a hypothetical worker of the future could very well look at us now rejecting the 4 day workweek the same way we look at our predecessors justifying child labor and black lung.
- thunky 4y ago
  > both your worldviews regarding work coincide neatly, and do so specifically in favor of only one person in the equation I disagree with this. I believe I have a mutual agreement that benefits myself and my employer. If I felt like I could complete my job in 30 hours a week instead of 40, I could have a conversation with my employer and negotiation for a shorter work week. If that didn't work, I could find a part time or flex job. > a hypothetical worker of the future could very well look at us now rejecting the 4 day workweek the same way we look at our predecessors justifying child labor and black lung I agree that people will look back and think it absurd that we stuck to a 40 hour work week for so long. Progress should be making our lives easier and demanding less of us but that's not what's happing for most. The way we make this better, in my opinion, is by being honest about it. If someone fakes it with a mouse jiggler to make it seem like they're working 40 hours when they're not, they're actually helping keep the 40 hour work week alive. But still, we're talking about people lucky enough to have a fakable job, not people doing real work. None of this applies to the person working the drive thru that can barely make rent on a 40 hour work week and would be underwater if reduced to 30.

by thunky 4y ago

Bakary 4y ago

I can't really respond to this without restating the arguments already made earlier, but ask yourself this: isn't it an odd coincidence that this appraisal of the situation on your end is absolutely ideal for the employer? - It leaves little possibility of advocating for better conditions, even if these might be straightforward to obtain - Makes it more likely to expend additional energy for the employer due to a moral abstraction as opposed to a material or social/societal need - Assigns high moral worth to the employer by virtue of their ownership and higher class. The employee can't merely sign a contract, but must also practice additional gratefulness in favor of the employer - Could potentially lead to monitoring and reporting other workers based on the abstraction of dishonesty, at no material or social gain to either worker involved or any clearly identifiable societal improvement The employer makes far more money, their relationship to work is completely different, they own at least a significant part of the company, belong to a higher social class, and yet both your worldviews regarding work coincide neatly, and do so specifically in favor of only one person in the equation. We could transpose this to a hypothetical Victorian worker. They could say that they are privileged to work 12 hour days because they could also work as a literal slave. That they should show extra diligence for the employer because that God-given hierarchy is natural and wholesome. From our vantage point, this mindset sounds absurd and the result of internalized oppression, but a hypothetical worker of the future could very well look at us now rejecting the 4 day workweek the same way we look at our predecessors justifying child labor and black lung.

thunky 4y ago
> both your worldviews regarding work coincide neatly, and do so specifically in favor of only one person in the equation I disagree with this. I believe I have a mutual agreement that benefits myself and my employer. If I felt like I could complete my job in 30 hours a week instead of 40, I could have a conversation with my employer and negotiation for a shorter work week. If that didn't work, I could find a part time or flex job. > a hypothetical worker of the future could very well look at us now rejecting the 4 day workweek the same way we look at our predecessors justifying child labor and black lung I agree that people will look back and think it absurd that we stuck to a 40 hour work week for so long. Progress should be making our lives easier and demanding less of us but that's not what's happing for most. The way we make this better, in my opinion, is by being honest about it. If someone fakes it with a mouse jiggler to make it seem like they're working 40 hours when they're not, they're actually helping keep the 40 hour work week alive. But still, we're talking about people lucky enough to have a fakable job, not people doing real work. None of this applies to the person working the drive thru that can barely make rent on a 40 hour work week and would be underwater if reduced to 30.