4 ms·

Because it’s absurdly reductionist and in my experience suggests either a poor work ethic or a lack of empathy or both. Additionally your argument isn’t logic

Because it’s absurdly reductionist and in my experience suggests either a poor work ethic or a lack of empathy or both. Additionally your argument isn’t logical. An unwillingness to do something for free isn’t equivalent not wanting to do it. You’ve moved the goalposts.

James_K 2y ago
Well okay, let's walk the goalposts back. Suppose there was some radical UBI scheme in place and now you get paid the same amount for working as you would for not working. There is no financial incentive to do any piece of work, but also no financial punishment for not working. Do you think most people would still go to their jobs? I think no. Most people are only motivated to work by the financial reward they get from working, not some fundamental desire to sit in an office for hours of the day. Quite frankly, I see people with your attitude as the real bad ones to work for. Expecting people to have a work ethic beyond what you pay them for, or to pretend to be passionate about whatever you're selling, these are the real red flags you should look out for when applying to a job. Not someone expecting you to do what you're told. I am exchanging my labour for money, and I think both parties understanding that is the bedrock of good professional relationship.
- cgriswald 2y ago
  You haven't moved the goalposts back. You just used more words to suggest that people won't be willing to do work for free. That doesn't speak to whether they want to do the work or not. People can want to have a job but also want to reap some external reward from that job. But I know, you've reduced it to such a degree that you can't think clearly about it any other way. So, to humor you: I know a woman who won the lottery at a young age, but kept her job as a waitress for decades because she wanted to be a waitress. I know retirees who have started new careers. I know retirees who have gone back to doing the same work they did before. None of these people needed money. They all did jobs. Nevermind volunteering, which, while you will probably argue isn't a job, is evidence that people will work for reasons other than financial incentives. Please note, these people aren't outliers, they're just people who even you have to believe are working for reasons other than money. Regardless, the fundamental problem with your argument besides trying to prop up a poor definition of 'job' is that you're conflating needing any job with needing a particular job. Lots of people are doing the job they want to be doing. Lots of people have other choices. > Quite frankly, I see people with your attitude as the real bad ones to work for. Expecting people to have a work ethic beyond what you pay them for, or to pretend to be passionate about whatever you're selling, these are the real red flags you should look out for when applying to a job. Not someone expecting you to do what you're told. I am exchanging my labour for money, and I think both parties understanding that is the bedrock of good professional relationship. We definitely do not have the same definition of 'work ethic' if this is what you took from my words.
  - James_K 2y ago
    > I know a woman who won the lottery at a young age, but kept her job as a waitress for decades because she wanted to be a waitress This is a lovely anecdote, but practically speaking most people do not have such enjoyable jobs. The world needs septic tank specialists and web developers and telephone sanitisers and accountants. Most of the things that need doing aren't all that desirable to do on their own. This is not to say that you can't take joy in doing them anyway, after all one must imagine Sisyphus happy, but merely that given ultimate choice, most people would not choose their current working arrangement. For instance within the field of programming, most people probably have something else they'd rather work on than what they do for living. Your millionaire waitress probably wouldn't want to work behind the fryer at MacDonalds. > We definitely do not have the same definition of 'work ethic' if this is what you took from my words. Clearly. In my view, work ethic is unrelated to enjoyment of your job. Someone with a good work ethic would be willing to do jobs that they don't enjoy, and would complete them at a similar standard to the work they do enjoy. It's easy to have a good work ethic when doing something you want to do; the real test of it is the things you don't want to do.
    - cgriswald 2y ago
      So, you still haven’t made your case for your original claim. You’re ignoring my argument I think because it’s not reductive enough for you to see. And you just sent a paragraph about a single example among several examples which I specifically disclaimed as exemplary and highly visible as if that somehow is negated by your hypotheticals. You are following that up by, I guess, trying to convince me that I should ignore my experiences in favor of your reductive arguments that are based largely on definitions that I don’t agree on in the first place. What are we even doing here? What you experience internally is not evidence of what “the real world” is actually like. You may very well have an amazing work ethic and view your jobs as strictly transactional (and that’s irrespective of enjoyment which is reductive of the many reasons people want to do their jobs). Honestly, I believe that about you. But that internal view is far from universal regardless of work ethic. I understand you’ve convinced yourself that the UBI and other hypotheticals are proof but they’re only proof if you’re already subscribed to those reductive views. “Wants” don’t work that way and if they did we’d be able to reduce them further and say that people do want to do their jobs evidenced by the fact that they do them.
- ang_cire 2y ago
  The sheer amount of FOSS, free art, self-published literature, music, etc that exists trivially disproves the idea that people won't work without monetary compensation. I agree that it's not good for people to be passionate about a job, but that's only because the company isn't equally passionate about you. That passion in today's jobs is a weapon to exploit your labor. In a healthier form of work, where you and other workers actually own the company and share in its success equally, passion for the work and the org is great to have.

James_K 2y ago

Well okay, let's walk the goalposts back. Suppose there was some radical UBI scheme in place and now you get paid the same amount for working as you would for not working. There is no financial incentive to do any piece of work, but also no financial punishment for not working. Do you think most people would still go to their jobs? I think no. Most people are only motivated to work by the financial reward they get from working, not some fundamental desire to sit in an office for hours of the day. Quite frankly, I see people with your attitude as the real bad ones to work for. Expecting people to have a work ethic beyond what you pay them for, or to pretend to be passionate about whatever you're selling, these are the real red flags you should look out for when applying to a job. Not someone expecting you to do what you're told. I am exchanging my labour for money, and I think both parties understanding that is the bedrock of good professional relationship.

cgriswald 2y ago
You haven't moved the goalposts back. You just used more words to suggest that people won't be willing to do work for free. That doesn't speak to whether they want to do the work or not. People can want to have a job but also want to reap some external reward from that job. But I know, you've reduced it to such a degree that you can't think clearly about it any other way. So, to humor you: I know a woman who won the lottery at a young age, but kept her job as a waitress for decades because she wanted to be a waitress. I know retirees who have started new careers. I know retirees who have gone back to doing the same work they did before. None of these people needed money. They all did jobs. Nevermind volunteering, which, while you will probably argue isn't a job, is evidence that people will work for reasons other than financial incentives. Please note, these people aren't outliers, they're just people who even you have to believe are working for reasons other than money. Regardless, the fundamental problem with your argument besides trying to prop up a poor definition of 'job' is that you're conflating needing any job with needing a particular job. Lots of people are doing the job they want to be doing. Lots of people have other choices. > Quite frankly, I see people with your attitude as the real bad ones to work for. Expecting people to have a work ethic beyond what you pay them for, or to pretend to be passionate about whatever you're selling, these are the real red flags you should look out for when applying to a job. Not someone expecting you to do what you're told. I am exchanging my labour for money, and I think both parties understanding that is the bedrock of good professional relationship. We definitely do not have the same definition of 'work ethic' if this is what you took from my words.
- James_K 2y ago
  > I know a woman who won the lottery at a young age, but kept her job as a waitress for decades because she wanted to be a waitress This is a lovely anecdote, but practically speaking most people do not have such enjoyable jobs. The world needs septic tank specialists and web developers and telephone sanitisers and accountants. Most of the things that need doing aren't all that desirable to do on their own. This is not to say that you can't take joy in doing them anyway, after all one must imagine Sisyphus happy, but merely that given ultimate choice, most people would not choose their current working arrangement. For instance within the field of programming, most people probably have something else they'd rather work on than what they do for living. Your millionaire waitress probably wouldn't want to work behind the fryer at MacDonalds. > We definitely do not have the same definition of 'work ethic' if this is what you took from my words. Clearly. In my view, work ethic is unrelated to enjoyment of your job. Someone with a good work ethic would be willing to do jobs that they don't enjoy, and would complete them at a similar standard to the work they do enjoy. It's easy to have a good work ethic when doing something you want to do; the real test of it is the things you don't want to do.
  - cgriswald 2y ago
    So, you still haven’t made your case for your original claim. You’re ignoring my argument I think because it’s not reductive enough for you to see. And you just sent a paragraph about a single example among several examples which I specifically disclaimed as exemplary and highly visible as if that somehow is negated by your hypotheticals. You are following that up by, I guess, trying to convince me that I should ignore my experiences in favor of your reductive arguments that are based largely on definitions that I don’t agree on in the first place. What are we even doing here? What you experience internally is not evidence of what “the real world” is actually like. You may very well have an amazing work ethic and view your jobs as strictly transactional (and that’s irrespective of enjoyment which is reductive of the many reasons people want to do their jobs). Honestly, I believe that about you. But that internal view is far from universal regardless of work ethic. I understand you’ve convinced yourself that the UBI and other hypotheticals are proof but they’re only proof if you’re already subscribed to those reductive views. “Wants” don’t work that way and if they did we’d be able to reduce them further and say that people do want to do their jobs evidenced by the fact that they do them.
ang_cire 2y ago
The sheer amount of FOSS, free art, self-published literature, music, etc that exists trivially disproves the idea that people won't work without monetary compensation. I agree that it's not good for people to be passionate about a job, but that's only because the company isn't equally passionate about you. That passion in today's jobs is a weapon to exploit your labor. In a healthier form of work, where you and other workers actually own the company and share in its success equally, passion for the work and the org is great to have.