3 ms·

It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "

It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."

clipsy 3y ago
[flagged]
- slibhb 3y ago
  If capitalism cares about anything, it's economic growth. It's unclear to me how half-assing two jobs is good for economic growth.
  - nemomarx 3y ago
    If you perform well enough that your boss doesn't notice, clearly it's providing the value you're getting paid for it? And getting 2-3 jobs out of a person is a multiplier to growth in theory, since they augment more other workers labour.
    - slibhb 3y ago
      > If you perform well enough that your boss doesn't notice, clearly it's providing the value you're getting paid for it? Let's assume the goal of capitalism is economic growth. The fact that you can hold two jobs while doing no work is not evidence that your actions are helping either of your companies, or the economy, grow.
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        If those companies are unaware of how much work their (salaried) employees are capable of doing, they're by definition inefficient and deserve to get replaced by more competent competitors. That's the system working exactly as designed. The employee working two jobs is doing something equivalent to price discovery.
    - Nathanba 3y ago
      that's like saying "if you steal from someone and he doesnt notice it, clearly he doesn't need it" If you think about this a bit more deeply, you realize "wait...a second"
      - card_zero 3y ago
        That's correct for property: it's called "adverse possession".
      - clipsy 3y ago
        When the job market is bad, these companies will not even slightly hesitate before demanding so much work that you need to put in 10, 20, even 30+ hours per week of unpaid overtime. They want to act like amoral money-extraction engines but they want to be treated like well-behaved moral agents.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than personal profit. Half-assing two jobs might not be good for economic growth, but it's the essence of capitalism - earn the most you can for doing the least you can get away with and vice versa, extract the most labor you can while paying the least you can get away with.
    - slibhb 3y ago
      Capitalism is free markets, private property, voluntary exchange of labor, capital accumulation, etc. What you're complaining about is greed. Greed has existed throughout human history (and probably before). Greed is found wherever there are people (and probably animals), including in non-capitalist arrangements.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        I wasn't complaining about greed, not in this comment anyway. I was merely describing the nature of free markets with supply & demand as its driving principle. Those are the rules, but employers despise getting beaten at their own game.
        slibhb 3y ago
        Markets don't reward greed. They reward behavior that grows the market. In the long run growing the market comes down to capital (as in factories, roads, and stuff), technology, skills, culture, and people.
    - _giorgio_ 3y ago
      [flagged]
testacpwoek 3y ago
> The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win Yes, that is how our economic system works. What, are you under the illusion we still have some kind of social contract or moral responsibility toward society? If my CEO doesn't, why the hell should I? For the record I don't think it's good, but I didn't invent the game, we're all just trying to play it as best we can.
- wryoak 3y ago
  It’s about the moral contract with yourself, but that’s your business and no one else’s. If you compare your values to those of your CEO, or anyone, then you’ve likely lost sight of that. You become fearful of being who you want to be and fixated on attachment and loss prevention.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    I've never worked two jobs like that, but if an opportunity presented itself, I'd probably take it. I'll save my morals for people who actually care about me. You can be perfectly moral in your personal life while being amoral in your professional life when it comes to matters like these. Trying to be moral in an inherently amoral environment is just opening yourself up for exploitation.
    - collingreen 3y ago
      This isn't how I think of morality. Im mostly just being pedantic here but it stuck out to me in a weird way so here's an internet comment with my thought. You can do whatever you think is right for you and I have no judgement for you either way, I just don't personally use morality to describe this kind of situation. I think I agree with some of your underlying sentiment about the normal work and human experience being ruthless and cruel, and I understand the foolishness and danger in treating bad people like they are good by deciding to do that is your moral decision it isn't someone outside or morality in some way. Morality is only really tested when it isn't the easy or most profitable way.
- Nathanba 3y ago
wryoak 3y ago
As tempting as it is having been unemployed for fifteen months to get indignant, if someone can hold down two simultaneous jobs those jobs are probably not worth having. I could have worked a second job while at my last. That’s a big part of why I left.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. if we're being frank: one person's half assed may be better than someone less talented but throwing all their effort trying to finish tasks. Talent isn't equal, even if pay for the position has a relatively narrow range (working twice as hard at one job =/= twice the pay/benefits). I think there is certainly a conversation to have about "overemployment" and how that can cut into the ability for other talent to be fostered, but I'm not going to pretend that 90%+ of companies ever cared about training their employees or even keeping them for more than 2 years. If they could get some person with 20 YOE working at half their output for 150k (because they then have a 2nd job doing the same thing), I doubt the moral quandries would even come into effect. Just potential legal/NDA issues.
curtisblaine 3y ago
The company would gladly replace you with one person doing exactly your job for half the pay - why if you do the same thing reversed you have to care if "your boss loses"?
api 3y ago
It’s also poisoning the well for other remote workers, giving remote work a bad name. Ruin everything for a quick buck and then run, very hustle culture. Of course I guess our society is incentivizing this kind of behavior.

It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."

clipsy 3y ago

[flagged]

slibhb 3y ago
If capitalism cares about anything, it's economic growth. It's unclear to me how half-assing two jobs is good for economic growth.
- nemomarx 3y ago
  If you perform well enough that your boss doesn't notice, clearly it's providing the value you're getting paid for it? And getting 2-3 jobs out of a person is a multiplier to growth in theory, since they augment more other workers labour.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    > If you perform well enough that your boss doesn't notice, clearly it's providing the value you're getting paid for it? Let's assume the goal of capitalism is economic growth. The fact that you can hold two jobs while doing no work is not evidence that your actions are helping either of your companies, or the economy, grow.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      If those companies are unaware of how much work their (salaried) employees are capable of doing, they're by definition inefficient and deserve to get replaced by more competent competitors. That's the system working exactly as designed. The employee working two jobs is doing something equivalent to price discovery.
  - Nathanba 3y ago
    that's like saying "if you steal from someone and he doesnt notice it, clearly he doesn't need it" If you think about this a bit more deeply, you realize "wait...a second"
    - card_zero 3y ago
      That's correct for property: it's called "adverse possession".
    - clipsy 3y ago
      When the job market is bad, these companies will not even slightly hesitate before demanding so much work that you need to put in 10, 20, even 30+ hours per week of unpaid overtime. They want to act like amoral money-extraction engines but they want to be treated like well-behaved moral agents.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than personal profit. Half-assing two jobs might not be good for economic growth, but it's the essence of capitalism - earn the most you can for doing the least you can get away with and vice versa, extract the most labor you can while paying the least you can get away with.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    Capitalism is free markets, private property, voluntary exchange of labor, capital accumulation, etc. What you're complaining about is greed. Greed has existed throughout human history (and probably before). Greed is found wherever there are people (and probably animals), including in non-capitalist arrangements.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      I wasn't complaining about greed, not in this comment anyway. I was merely describing the nature of free markets with supply & demand as its driving principle. Those are the rules, but employers despise getting beaten at their own game.
      - slibhb 3y ago
        Markets don't reward greed. They reward behavior that grows the market. In the long run growing the market comes down to capital (as in factories, roads, and stuff), technology, skills, culture, and people.
  - _giorgio_ 3y ago
    [flagged]

testacpwoek 3y ago

> The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win Yes, that is how our economic system works. What, are you under the illusion we still have some kind of social contract or moral responsibility toward society? If my CEO doesn't, why the hell should I? For the record I don't think it's good, but I didn't invent the game, we're all just trying to play it as best we can.

wryoak 3y ago
It’s about the moral contract with yourself, but that’s your business and no one else’s. If you compare your values to those of your CEO, or anyone, then you’ve likely lost sight of that. You become fearful of being who you want to be and fixated on attachment and loss prevention.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  I've never worked two jobs like that, but if an opportunity presented itself, I'd probably take it. I'll save my morals for people who actually care about me. You can be perfectly moral in your personal life while being amoral in your professional life when it comes to matters like these. Trying to be moral in an inherently amoral environment is just opening yourself up for exploitation.
  - collingreen 3y ago
    This isn't how I think of morality. Im mostly just being pedantic here but it stuck out to me in a weird way so here's an internet comment with my thought. You can do whatever you think is right for you and I have no judgement for you either way, I just don't personally use morality to describe this kind of situation. I think I agree with some of your underlying sentiment about the normal work and human experience being ruthless and cruel, and I understand the foolishness and danger in treating bad people like they are good by deciding to do that is your moral decision it isn't someone outside or morality in some way. Morality is only really tested when it isn't the easy or most profitable way.
Nathanba 3y ago

wryoak 3y ago

As tempting as it is having been unemployed for fifteen months to get indignant, if someone can hold down two simultaneous jobs those jobs are probably not worth having. I could have worked a second job while at my last. That’s a big part of why I left.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. if we're being frank: one person's half assed may be better than someone less talented but throwing all their effort trying to finish tasks. Talent isn't equal, even if pay for the position has a relatively narrow range (working twice as hard at one job =/= twice the pay/benefits). I think there is certainly a conversation to have about "overemployment" and how that can cut into the ability for other talent to be fostered, but I'm not going to pretend that 90%+ of companies ever cared about training their employees or even keeping them for more than 2 years. If they could get some person with 20 YOE working at half their output for 150k (because they then have a 2nd job doing the same thing), I doubt the moral quandries would even come into effect. Just potential legal/NDA issues.

curtisblaine 3y ago

The company would gladly replace you with one person doing exactly your job for half the pay - why if you do the same thing reversed you have to care if "your boss loses"?

api 3y ago

It’s also poisoning the well for other remote workers, giving remote work a bad name. Ruin everything for a quick buck and then run, very hustle culture. Of course I guess our society is incentivizing this kind of behavior.