4 ms·

This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration an

This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration and sorta explain away their failure. The judgment permeates the model, apparently the only desirable position js at the top (but then you're a sociopath), second best is a checked-out loser. To me, being a "clueless" or "over-performing loser" is preferable to a "checked-out loser" (I've been all of those at times), at minimum because the former like their job. Micheal, Andy and Dwight enjoy their job and even find some fulfillment there. Meanwhile for e. g. Stanley the work seems to be only necessary suffering. I'd rather make my work enjoyable than having to suffer 8 hours a day.

rkachowski 2y ago
we must imagine Sisyphus happy
usrnm 2y ago
> I'd rather make my work enjoyable than having to suffer 8 hours a day. And you're making an irrational decision because it makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't really contradict the essence of the article. If you look at work from the economic point of view, it's just an economic transaction, we are selling our time for money. Selling more of my time for more money or selling less of it for the same money are both rational things to do, selling more time and effort for the same money is not very rational.
- zahllos 2y ago
  I agree with the parent poster, the author sounds very bitter. Might not be true, they might be trying at humour and I haven't got it. But I think doing the minimum you can get away with is playing with fire. Your colleagues will resent you. You're also sending a signal to everyone that will be remembered. Maybe a colleague will start a business or move to another place one day. Are they going to employ the minimum effort person they used to work with? No.
  - wnolens 2y ago
    Even just viewing a job purely as an economic transaction is short-sighted. You are at least making social transactions, and likely also meaning transactions. Hell, even a commute to work where you're spending time, gas, and risk on the road can serve as a quiet time to process and integrate life's experiences.
  - usrnm 2y ago
    > Your colleagues will resent you Why would they? We're all adults and all more or less understand the rules of the game. And in rare cases in my career when the company culture was all about working long hours and living at work, I just tend not to stick in such places for long
    - throaway812 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - throaway812 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - zahllos 2y ago
      It depends where you draw the line of "enough to get by". There are two cases: case A is where the expectations exceed what you're really being paid for, i.e. those cases you mention where the company culture is long hours. This isn't what I'm on about, but for completeness, these places are awful to work at and I definitely agree escaping them is the most rational thing to do. Case B is different. Case B is where you work somewhere with reasonable work-life balance, but where you have a colleague who persistently under-performs. They won't do the essential documentation, follow the process correctly and they will quite happily sit through meetings and not volunteer a solution they know the answer to unless explicitly asked in just the right way and they happen to feel like it that day. This can take a few different forms - my list is not exclusive but it boils down to "quiet quitting" - but, as you say we are all adults, and we know who these people are.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  > And you're making an irrational decision because it makes you feel better. By the same approach, it's irrational to provide anything more than the bare minimum to my kids to not get social services on my back. Doing any volunteering is irrational, contributing to charities is irrational. In all of these examples, you will also find other parties (financially) benefitting from my "stupidity". If your worldview is constrained to a cynical Homo Oeconomicus, that is. Let's make a model example: I work in a dead-end job. Prospects of advancement or significant pay raise is small, no matter the performance. I have two options: * checked-out loser - do the bare minimum to not get fired. I'm not producing a lot of value to the executives. I don't see meaning in the job, no fulfillment, I need to slog through the 8-hour days. * over-performing loser - I try to find meaning and enjoyment in the work I do. My productivity grows (for the same pay), but you know, doing things well is actually kinda enjoyable, and I become to like my work, even see some fulfillment. Sometimes I even identify a bit with my job, and I'm willing to work some overtime to e.g. finish a project on time. The crazy thing is to say that the former is more "rational" than the "latter". Your first instinct is to look for places where I might accidentally create too much value for some other parties and cut that out even if I'm hurt (subjectively, not financially) in the process. My first instinct is to ask - which one is better for me and the people I like? If someone else benefits too, that's very secondary for me.
epolanski 2y ago
> The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks. Both Michael and Dwight are excellent salesmen, but both struck bad (financial) deals for a steady paycheck. If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  > Both Michael and Dwight are excellent salesmen, but both struck bad (financial) deals for a steady paycheck. This model suggests that the only way you can strike a good financial deal is to be an executive (for which you need to be a sociopath). It's a circular proof by definition. > If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders. Did I? This model just assumes it without bothering to substantiate it. There's no accepted way to calculate value one is producing in an organization. How much value is an HR person, logistics worker, production worker really producing?
  - krapp 2y ago
    This model isn't concerned with value produced for the company, but value produced for the employee, and the only relevant metrics in that regard are profit and power. To do anything less than ruthlessly maximize for both makes you a loser in capitalist terms because that's the game of capitalism and you're choosing not to play. To believe in ideals other than profit and power makes you clueless, because those ideals are just levers of control meant to keep the losers in line and you can't see it. To be capable of playing the game and winning requires a sociopathic personality who understands the nature of capitalism and the true purpose of any corporation (amassing wealth and power) and is willing and able exploit both the losers and the clueless. In any case doesn't actually matter what the company actually does.

rkachowski 2y ago

we must imagine Sisyphus happy

usrnm 2y ago

> I'd rather make my work enjoyable than having to suffer 8 hours a day. And you're making an irrational decision because it makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't really contradict the essence of the article. If you look at work from the economic point of view, it's just an economic transaction, we are selling our time for money. Selling more of my time for more money or selling less of it for the same money are both rational things to do, selling more time and effort for the same money is not very rational.

zahllos 2y ago
I agree with the parent poster, the author sounds very bitter. Might not be true, they might be trying at humour and I haven't got it. But I think doing the minimum you can get away with is playing with fire. Your colleagues will resent you. You're also sending a signal to everyone that will be remembered. Maybe a colleague will start a business or move to another place one day. Are they going to employ the minimum effort person they used to work with? No.
- wnolens 2y ago
  Even just viewing a job purely as an economic transaction is short-sighted. You are at least making social transactions, and likely also meaning transactions. Hell, even a commute to work where you're spending time, gas, and risk on the road can serve as a quiet time to process and integrate life's experiences.
- usrnm 2y ago
  > Your colleagues will resent you Why would they? We're all adults and all more or less understand the rules of the game. And in rare cases in my career when the company culture was all about working long hours and living at work, I just tend not to stick in such places for long
  - throaway812 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - throaway812 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - zahllos 2y ago
    It depends where you draw the line of "enough to get by". There are two cases: case A is where the expectations exceed what you're really being paid for, i.e. those cases you mention where the company culture is long hours. This isn't what I'm on about, but for completeness, these places are awful to work at and I definitely agree escaping them is the most rational thing to do. Case B is different. Case B is where you work somewhere with reasonable work-life balance, but where you have a colleague who persistently under-performs. They won't do the essential documentation, follow the process correctly and they will quite happily sit through meetings and not volunteer a solution they know the answer to unless explicitly asked in just the right way and they happen to feel like it that day. This can take a few different forms - my list is not exclusive but it boils down to "quiet quitting" - but, as you say we are all adults, and we know who these people are.
The_Colonel 2y ago
> And you're making an irrational decision because it makes you feel better. By the same approach, it's irrational to provide anything more than the bare minimum to my kids to not get social services on my back. Doing any volunteering is irrational, contributing to charities is irrational. In all of these examples, you will also find other parties (financially) benefitting from my "stupidity". If your worldview is constrained to a cynical Homo Oeconomicus, that is. Let's make a model example: I work in a dead-end job. Prospects of advancement or significant pay raise is small, no matter the performance. I have two options: * checked-out loser - do the bare minimum to not get fired. I'm not producing a lot of value to the executives. I don't see meaning in the job, no fulfillment, I need to slog through the 8-hour days. * over-performing loser - I try to find meaning and enjoyment in the work I do. My productivity grows (for the same pay), but you know, doing things well is actually kinda enjoyable, and I become to like my work, even see some fulfillment. Sometimes I even identify a bit with my job, and I'm willing to work some overtime to e.g. finish a project on time. The crazy thing is to say that the former is more "rational" than the "latter". Your first instinct is to look for places where I might accidentally create too much value for some other parties and cut that out even if I'm hurt (subjectively, not financially) in the process. My first instinct is to ask - which one is better for me and the people I like? If someone else benefits too, that's very secondary for me.

epolanski 2y ago

> The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks. Both Michael and Dwight are excellent salesmen, but both struck bad (financial) deals for a steady paycheck. If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders.

The_Colonel 2y ago
> Both Michael and Dwight are excellent salesmen, but both struck bad (financial) deals for a steady paycheck. This model suggests that the only way you can strike a good financial deal is to be an executive (for which you need to be a sociopath). It's a circular proof by definition. > If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders. Did I? This model just assumes it without bothering to substantiate it. There's no accepted way to calculate value one is producing in an organization. How much value is an HR person, logistics worker, production worker really producing?
- krapp 2y ago
  This model isn't concerned with value produced for the company, but value produced for the employee, and the only relevant metrics in that regard are profit and power. To do anything less than ruthlessly maximize for both makes you a loser in capitalist terms because that's the game of capitalism and you're choosing not to play. To believe in ideals other than profit and power makes you clueless, because those ideals are just levers of control meant to keep the losers in line and you can't see it. To be capable of playing the game and winning requires a sociopathic personality who understands the nature of capitalism and the true purpose of any corporation (amassing wealth and power) and is willing and able exploit both the losers and the clueless. In any case doesn't actually matter what the company actually does.