6 ms·

I have the opposite reaction to this posting: Penny Arcade are being abundantly clear and transparent about the requirements and drawbacks of the role. It's no

I have the opposite reaction to this posting: Penny Arcade are being abundantly clear and transparent about the requirements and drawbacks of the role. It's not exploitation; it's a trade, and Penny Arcade have listed out their terms. Everyone is free, or not, to go along with what they want. The author mixes two messages: (1) the merits of the offer, and (2) the ethics of the offer. The author may be right about (1) -- I am not qualified to say -- but this does not imply that he's also right about (2). A poor job offer is not an unethical one; and in this sense I think Penny Arcade are living up to higher standards by being transparent about where they may fall short.

methodover 13y ago
He makes an explicit case for both (1) and (2). He doesn't try and merely imply (2). Also, a transparent trade can still be exploitive. If I were to advertise for a slave, that would be an advertisement for an exploitive "offer." The real question is if this offer, in particular, is exploitive or not. I think he makes a solid case that it is.
- tankbot 13y ago
  > He makes an explicit case for both (1) and (2). He doesn't try and merely imply (2). You read wrong. tvladek did not say Buecheler implied anything, only that being correct about one thing does not imply being correct about another. And if you advertised for a slave you would presumably be dealing with the owner of said slave, so if you were offering a reasonable price, then no that would not be an exploitative offer. Khoo's job posting offers value and leaves it up to the applicant to decide if that is inline with their requirements. For some it will be a dream job. For others it will not. Slaves do not choose to be slaves, that is part of the definition of the term. The introduction of hyperbole and apples to oranges comparisons does not further conversation.
  - methodover 13y ago
    Voluntarily entering into slavery was indeed popular. Individuals would sell themselves into slavery to pay a debt, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
    - tankbot 13y ago
      Yes, that's true, point to you! I'm not sure I would call it 'popular' though. Maybe 'somewhat common among people with no other possible options outside of death or prison (death).'
GauntletWizard 13y ago
You can take precisely the same position about walmart; Their jobs are shitty, but they're an offer, and working it is up to you. Whether this validates walmart or damns PA is up to you. Personally, I take the former opinion, though I'm saddened that walmart is able to continue to exist despite their bad proposition. Many people see their options as "Work for walmart" or "starve", and in many cases, they're right (Or they might end up with both anyway). Basic income might fix this, though I doubt it.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Right, that's kind of a difference between the WalMart offer and the Penny Arcade offer. Anybody who gets the job at Penny Arcade has many other good options.
coldtea 13y ago
>I have the opposite reaction to this posting: Penny Arcade are being abundantly clear and transparent about the requirements and drawbacks of the role. Given what the requirements and the drawbacks are, that's just marginally better than not being clear. To give an extreme example to make this clear, I'm not going to be lauded by putting up an ad like: "I'm a old-style racist, and want a black person to serve as my personal assistant. No salary given. Must do as told".
- eridius 13y ago
  You say that like the Penny Arcade job listing is somehow rare. It actually sounds like an accurate description of a lot of startup jobs out there. The only thing unique here is that they're actually being upfront about expectations, instead of letting the new hire find out over time about the true expectations of their role.
  - ceol 13y ago
    And every time someone talks about those terrible startup jobs, everyone agrees they're garbage.
    - eridius 13y ago
      Sure, but they don't typically accuse the person who posted the job of being scum, which a lot of people seem to be doing with this Penny Arcade listing.
grecy 13y ago
> Everyone is free, or not, to go along with what they want. But in America, with no social safety net, the alternative is not pretty. Reading about unpaid internships, Wal-mart having food drives for their employees and McDonald's recommending employees get a second job makes me sick to my stomach. The very fact that people even take these jobs is proof they don't have another choice - what sane person would work these jobs if they had a viable alternative - any alternative.
- jdminhbg 13y ago
  > But in America, with no social safety net I'm starting to doubt that this kind of thing is hyperbole and starting to think people actually believe it.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Break your leg, don't claim insurance, and have your car break down, and lose your job. Tell me about that safety net.
    - jdminhbg 13y ago
      I guess I was right, it wasn't hyperbole, you actually believe it. At any rate: http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ I'm sure the reply will be that that isn't enough, so at least then we'll just be back to it being righteous hyperbole.
      - Zimahl 13y ago
        If you think Social Security is a safety net, think again. Unless you are completely disabled you aren't going to see a dime from SSI. Anything that is 'short term' you are out of luck. Even cancer is considered 'short term'. A real safety net for disability would be something like what Aflac provides. I had a friend who slipped a disk in his back and was stuck on a couch for months until he had surgery. Fortunately for him his company paid for disability insurance as a perk. I'm not sure what he would've done otherwise.
scarecrowbob 13y ago
Being up front about your unethical behavior just makes you more culpable, because not only _should_ you know better, you do in fact know better but will proceed anyhow.
mncolinlee 13y ago
So to extend your argument-- as long as a worker is fully informed that he may die working in a dangerous factory, it's not unethical to lock the doors and windows? Are you redefining ethics to suit your argument? Consent does not voids ethics. It's only a single component of ethical behavior.
- tvladeck 13y ago
  How does that bear any relationship to my argument?
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    You said "it's not exploitation; it's a trade." I'm saying the two are clearly not mutually exclusive.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

methodover 13y ago

He makes an explicit case for both (1) and (2). He doesn't try and merely imply (2). Also, a transparent trade can still be exploitive. If I were to advertise for a slave, that would be an advertisement for an exploitive "offer." The real question is if this offer, in particular, is exploitive or not. I think he makes a solid case that it is.

tankbot 13y ago
> He makes an explicit case for both (1) and (2). He doesn't try and merely imply (2). You read wrong. tvladek did not say Buecheler implied anything, only that being correct about one thing does not imply being correct about another. And if you advertised for a slave you would presumably be dealing with the owner of said slave, so if you were offering a reasonable price, then no that would not be an exploitative offer. Khoo's job posting offers value and leaves it up to the applicant to decide if that is inline with their requirements. For some it will be a dream job. For others it will not. Slaves do not choose to be slaves, that is part of the definition of the term. The introduction of hyperbole and apples to oranges comparisons does not further conversation.
- methodover 13y ago
  Voluntarily entering into slavery was indeed popular. Individuals would sell themselves into slavery to pay a debt, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
  - tankbot 13y ago
    Yes, that's true, point to you! I'm not sure I would call it 'popular' though. Maybe 'somewhat common among people with no other possible options outside of death or prison (death).'

GauntletWizard 13y ago

You can take precisely the same position about walmart; Their jobs are shitty, but they're an offer, and working it is up to you. Whether this validates walmart or damns PA is up to you. Personally, I take the former opinion, though I'm saddened that walmart is able to continue to exist despite their bad proposition. Many people see their options as "Work for walmart" or "starve", and in many cases, they're right (Or they might end up with both anyway). Basic income might fix this, though I doubt it.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Right, that's kind of a difference between the WalMart offer and the Penny Arcade offer. Anybody who gets the job at Penny Arcade has many other good options.

coldtea 13y ago

>I have the opposite reaction to this posting: Penny Arcade are being abundantly clear and transparent about the requirements and drawbacks of the role. Given what the requirements and the drawbacks are, that's just marginally better than not being clear. To give an extreme example to make this clear, I'm not going to be lauded by putting up an ad like: "I'm a old-style racist, and want a black person to serve as my personal assistant. No salary given. Must do as told".

eridius 13y ago
You say that like the Penny Arcade job listing is somehow rare. It actually sounds like an accurate description of a lot of startup jobs out there. The only thing unique here is that they're actually being upfront about expectations, instead of letting the new hire find out over time about the true expectations of their role.
- ceol 13y ago
  And every time someone talks about those terrible startup jobs, everyone agrees they're garbage.
  - eridius 13y ago
    Sure, but they don't typically accuse the person who posted the job of being scum, which a lot of people seem to be doing with this Penny Arcade listing.

grecy 13y ago

> Everyone is free, or not, to go along with what they want. But in America, with no social safety net, the alternative is not pretty. Reading about unpaid internships, Wal-mart having food drives for their employees and McDonald's recommending employees get a second job makes me sick to my stomach. The very fact that people even take these jobs is proof they don't have another choice - what sane person would work these jobs if they had a viable alternative - any alternative.

jdminhbg 13y ago
> But in America, with no social safety net I'm starting to doubt that this kind of thing is hyperbole and starting to think people actually believe it.
- angersock 13y ago
  Break your leg, don't claim insurance, and have your car break down, and lose your job. Tell me about that safety net.
  - jdminhbg 13y ago
    I guess I was right, it wasn't hyperbole, you actually believe it. At any rate: http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ I'm sure the reply will be that that isn't enough, so at least then we'll just be back to it being righteous hyperbole.
    - Zimahl 13y ago
      If you think Social Security is a safety net, think again. Unless you are completely disabled you aren't going to see a dime from SSI. Anything that is 'short term' you are out of luck. Even cancer is considered 'short term'. A real safety net for disability would be something like what Aflac provides. I had a friend who slipped a disk in his back and was stuck on a couch for months until he had surgery. Fortunately for him his company paid for disability insurance as a perk. I'm not sure what he would've done otherwise.

scarecrowbob 13y ago

Being up front about your unethical behavior just makes you more culpable, because not only _should_ you know better, you do in fact know better but will proceed anyhow.

mncolinlee 13y ago

So to extend your argument-- as long as a worker is fully informed that he may die working in a dangerous factory, it's not unethical to lock the doors and windows? Are you redefining ethics to suit your argument? Consent does not voids ethics. It's only a single component of ethical behavior.

tvladeck 13y ago
How does that bear any relationship to my argument?
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  You said "it's not exploitation; it's a trade." I'm saying the two are clearly not mutually exclusive.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]