Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Unemployment Thread

1356

Posts

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The issue is a question of organizational health, like a recent story about a woman who was basically forced out of Uber because her boss wouldn't stop sexually harassing her and HR wouldn't do a thing about it. She described an environment where managers saw their only duty as subverting each other and undermining their superiors in order to get ahead. This is a very blatant case, but oftentimes companies just have no sense of what the organization's true priorities are other than "do stuff and make a profit off of it." Management's opinions on talent need to be clear from top to bottom: are we a high-turnover environment where labor is expendable, or are we going to invest in our workforce, and if so, what is the experience an average "good performer" should get re: advancement opportunity, raises, possible incentive pay?

    The company needs to speak with one voice in that regard, and many of them rarely do.

    If you're going to treat labor as expendable, you should at least own that and account for it as far as how that will affect the company, and make the expectation to employees clear coming in that only 20% of new hires last two years with the organization. If you don't want high turnover, then you need clear steps to combat that which are understood not only by management, but by labor. Everybody should be on the same page.

    Yep. My company invests pretty heavily in management training to ensure alignment. In addition, we had an exec vice president speak during our initial training (all managers go through a week near the start of their term in a central location), and what he said to us was profound: His stance was that he could not effect change, as that's only possible through employees and the frontline managers (IE - managers of employees, not managers of managers) - if they don't buy in, shit does not happen. This is why corporate initiatives fail - because if you can't sell it to the FLM's, they won't sell it to employees and it will become another failed initiative.
    Losing an employee to us is a failure, as every new employee is an investment in training. Companies should seek to understand bad fits, why they happen and correct them. This is just one ethos though, as other companies I've encountered are more about "produce or leave" philosophies.

    UnluckyBlackDragon480iTunesIsEvilCalica
  • KPCKPC Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist rugged, weathered Registered User regular
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    f36tsqisrl51.png
    Captain MarcusCalica
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.

    They make Fuckin millions.

    They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.

    I know you don't believe that all business owners are making millions on the backs of the suffering downtrodden worker, but this is what it sounds like you're arguing. The OP we're referencing is a manufacturing company in rural PA that is trying to compete with overseas companies and only succeeding because they take very thin margins and deliver faster than the competition. IDK who owns the place but come on Sleep! Not every businessman is a Fat Cat!

    All business owners billionaires are making millions on the backs of the suffering downtrodden worker.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    SleepskyknytMegaMekdispatch.oCalica
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    There are many US businesses that pay workers so little that they require government subsidies in order to survive. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Target, etc. Anyone working at or near minimum wage is not being paid a livable salary. If they were to pay a livable wage, the business model would no longer be viable. These companies also pay little or no taxes.

    Taken together, what happens is that the private corporation is effectively transferring the difference in what it's employees should be making to what they are making into profit. And that difference comes from subsidies paid for by our taxes. So, Wal-Mart survives by turning our tax dollars into their profit margin.

    I am not OK with this.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    Gnome-InterruptusUnluckyMrVyngaardMan in the MistsskyknytAntinumericMegaMekForarMartini_PhilosopheriTunesIsEvilCaptain MarcuselectricitylikesmeSmrtnikThe EnderCalica
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    every business I have ever worked for has made millions off the backs of underpaid workers

    *except the one I interned at which was great but I shat the bed on office politics

    I mean I'm hardly suffering where I am now but like, I just got an offer to do the same thing for twice as much money so it's really hard to not say yes to that even though everything else is great here (my division had eight hundred percent growth last year, so it's hardly a struggling mom and pop outfit)

    Target and the video store I worked at both routinely violated labor laws and Wal Mart was okay but I left before the randians took over and gutted the work force in response to the recession (which is why half the wal marts look like the shelves have been hit in an apocalypse/hoarding situation)

    override367 on
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    can robots be exploited? because that's where this ends.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    spool32SleepDisruptedCapitalistMan in the MistsMegaMekThe Ender
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    can robots be exploited? because that's where this ends.

    Robots aren't exploited because they aren't paid for their service. They're purchased and maintained, but aren't given money. Robots are capital-goods used to produce goods.

    raoADVy.png
    SleepMartini_Philosopher
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    can robots be exploited? because that's where this ends.

    Robots aren't exploited because they aren't paid for their service. They're purchased and maintained, but aren't given money. Robots are capital-goods used to produce goods.

    ah, problem solved then!
    We should all look forward to this glorious future and the end of worker exploitation.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Sleepspool32HefflingMrVyngaardKaputaMegaMekMartini_PhilosopherThe Ender
  • EriktheVikingGamerEriktheVikingGamer Imperial Magistrate of the Mantis Clan Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    can robots be exploited? because that's where this ends.

    Robots aren't exploited because they aren't paid for their service. They're purchased and maintained, but aren't given money. Robots are capital-goods used to produce goods.

    ah, problem solved then!
    We should all look forward to this glorious future and the end of worker exploitation.

    At least until you're the guy who gets called at 3 in the morning to fix the clerkbot who won't spit out the receipt the customer wants.

    Origin ID: RedBeardViking
    Steam ID: MovieStuffs
    BNet ID: VikingErik#1560
    XBox Live ID: XboxVikingGamer
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Oghulk wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    can robots be exploited? because that's where this ends.

    Robots aren't exploited because they aren't paid for their service. They're purchased and maintained, but aren't given money. Robots are capital-goods used to produce goods.

    ah, problem solved then!
    We should all look forward to this glorious future and the end of worker exploitation.

    At least until you're the guy who gets called at 3 in the morning to fix the clerkbot who won't spit out the receipt the customer wants.

    Ah ha, not so. Because there won't be any customers.
    There will only be the robots, and those who own the robots.
    Everyone else, the "surplus population"... well, I'm sure the Owners will come up with some sort of solution to that problem.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    DisruptedCapitalistLoisLaneSmrtnik
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Oghulk wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.

    It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.


    The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.

    It's ultimately in a business owner's best interest to keep their labor happy and productive. It makes business sense, and sadly I don't see that as the norm rather than the exception.

    Still seems to be assuming that their competitors are playing fairly. If a competitor is in a place where they can exploit their workforce then it is hard for a company to find a profit.

    In this case I'm thinking of textile companies that are notorious for exploiting labor in third world countries like Bangladesh.

    can robots be exploited? because that's where this ends.

    Robots aren't exploited because they aren't paid for their service. They're purchased and maintained, but aren't given money. Robots are capital-goods used to produce goods.

    ah, problem solved then!
    We should all look forward to this glorious future and the end of worker exploitation.

    At least until you're the guy who gets called at 3 in the morning to fix the clerkbot who won't spit out the receipt the customer wants.

    Ah ha, not so. Because there won't be any customers.
    There will only be the robots, and those who own the robots.
    Everyone else, the "surplus population"... well, I'm sure the Owners will come up with some sort of solution to that problem.
    So, what is the solution to this problem? Do we totally change our social structure to be compatible with the new material conditions that are arising from technological advances?

    Edit - your last post was sarcastic, but I actually think automation could be liberatory. Maybe the most liberatory thing ever. But only if society responds to/incorporates it correctly.

    Kaputa on
    Commander ZoomCalica
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Oh, I agree completely. But what are the odds of that? :P

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    HamHamJCalica
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Points 1, 4, and 5.

    1) I honestly have no idea what to do with towns where the primary manufacturer left or closed. I think it's basically Universal Income for those areas or something, because retraining is a pipe dream (we're gonna get a 40 year old welder, train him as a teacher or java coder, and then see if he manages to a) learn, b) get hired), and there's just not enough manufacturing jobs being created for that sort of employment to increase enough to lift up those various towns and cities again. That's not even getting into resource extraction jobs, where the resource in question is gone or is no longer a viable product.

    4 (and a bit of 5)) I'll second the notion that companies have stupid ideas about entry level jobs. Back in the mid-90s when I was first let loose to have my hopes crushed by the uncaring job market, it was pretty normal to see entry level gigs looking for three or so years of experience. Only reason I'm doing as well as I am is because I was into computers at a time when they were hiring anyone with a pulse and who could figure out the difference between left and right clicking. Just speaking about financial tech jobs these days, the 'requirements' for jobs are insane. Requirements is in the scare quotes because they really aren't actual requirements to do the job. The company says they need someone with 5 years of Java, Unix, a few tech protocols (FIX), some DB knowledge, and 5-10 years in the industry. What they actually need to do the job is maybe someone whose taken a community college programming course, knows some basic SQL queries, and can wrangle about five Unix commands (ls, cd, grep, less, vi) with some vague level of competency. That's it. The rest of it comes from getting to know the hellscape that is all the proprietary systems and protocols that nearly every company in our industry uses.

    Unrealistic expectations for employee requirements, I believe, are a huge problem. Quite possibly not a huge contributor to unemployment, at least not relative to issues like criminal records or jobs just flat out not existing, but they mean that companies spend a lot of time looking for candidates to even interview, candidates that would be good fits get passed over because they don't have some element on the laundry list of requirements, and shitty candidates do get interviewed because they just up and bullshit on their resumes because they know they won't even get the interview otherwise. And there's nothing better than someone flubbing a question about how to view a file in a Unix terminal. Good times.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    In a lot of cases, IMO, those long lists of requirements are really there just to limit/thin the number of applicants down to something HR can skim through and/or interview in a reasonable amount of time. The labor oversupply is that bad (in some fields) right now.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Gnome-InterruptusThe Ender
  • AersienAersien Registered User regular
    I'm not directly enmeshed in the job market, but I get the sense that often people posting openings just throw out arbitrary lists of qualities and skills that might conceivably be helpful but often aren't relevant. Those may not be the people directly involved in hiring, who may in turn not be the people who end up directly relying on the work of the new hire. Companies have too many HR and management tentacles.

    The result is not only needless hiring hoops and hiring people based on ability to pitch themselves (and sometimes just lie) rather than fit for the position, but a process where both sides reasonably assume the other is misguided at best and malicious at worst. It sets the employee/employee hostility from prior to the start of employment and does that extra little bit to keep everyone jumpy and mistrustful.

    If the luminaries of the tech sector were designing the whole idea of employment de novo right now I think it would come out looking fairly different, in part because lots of it is still holdover from when everyone had to go hunt and gather or starve.

    But also it's psychologically very hard not to have meaningful work to engage in so I don't know. Universal basic income is a good idea, but leaving millions at loose ends is not, and not just in a Puirtan work ethic way. People need to feel that they are producing value, not just existing.

    bowenGnome-Interruptus
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Aersien wrote: »
    I'm not directly enmeshed in the job market, but I get the sense that often people posting openings just throw out arbitrary lists of qualities and skills that might conceivably be helpful but often aren't relevant. Those may not be the people directly involved in hiring, who may in turn not be the people who end up directly relying on the work of the new hire. Companies have too many HR and management tentacles.

    The result is not only needless hiring hoops and hiring people based on ability to pitch themselves (and sometimes just lie) rather than fit for the position, but a process where both sides reasonably assume the other is misguided at best and malicious at worst. It sets the employee/employee hostility from prior to the start of employment and does that extra little bit to keep everyone jumpy and mistrustful.

    If the luminaries of the tech sector were designing the whole idea of employment de novo right now I think it would come out looking fairly different, in part because lots of it is still holdover from when everyone had to go hunt and gather or starve.

    But also it's psychologically very hard not to have meaningful work to engage in so I don't know. Universal basic income is a good idea, but leaving millions at loose ends is not, and not just in a Puirtan work ethic way. People need to feel that they are producing value, not just existing.

    I suspect that people will find fulfilling hobbies real fast if that happens.

    schussDoctorArchKaputaLoisLanebowenAstaerethQuidSleepMrVyngaardMilltynicskyknytMegaMekThe EnderOghulkMvrckCalicawebguy20
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Even when you are lucky enough to match the job requirements, you'll often find your resume/application tossed in the dustbin for completely arbitrary reasons that make zero sense.

    Based on the quality of the job I finally found, there is no logical or sensible reason why almost every one of my 300 job applications to similar sized or smaller companies for the same kind of job were rejected without even a screening interview.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    LostNinjaSleepKraintkedinikzepherinOatsThro
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    uhhh... or you could just not do the drugs?
    (If you can't not do the drugs, that's another sort of problem.)

    and it's not like they don't lay their reasoning right out in the section you quoted.

    I'll quit the moment everyone who works at that zero tolerance company also quits drinking on their off time.

    because otherwise it's not "zero tolerance" it's "you use the drugs I'm okay with on your off time, not those other drugs"

    "The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.

    Javen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    KPC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    here's what I see when I read that

    "This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"

    hey

    here's your fucking problem

    that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery

    forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand

    you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent

    With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
    Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.

    Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?

    True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.

    This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got

    This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.

    If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.

    Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.

    They make Fuckin millions.

    They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.

    I know you don't believe that all business owners are making millions on the backs of the suffering downtrodden worker, but this is what it sounds like you're arguing. The OP we're referencing is a manufacturing company in rural PA that is trying to compete with overseas companies and only succeeding because they take very thin margins and deliver faster than the competition. IDK who owns the place but come on Sleep! Not every businessman is a Fat Cat!

    You're right, to a degree, but there's also other aspects that people don't often see that make these things less sympathetic for these poor broken factory owners. These factory owners might not be a 'Fat Cat', but, I bet at one point they were doing quite well.

    Do you know why they need someone with multiple years of experience to feed these steel extruders? Because they're likely using machines that are 2-3 times older than the average worker. All across America you see machine shops and factories going out of business because they can't compete, or cry because they can't find the skilled labor they need. The one thing they neglect to mention is that they never invested in their own company, never set aside money to modernize their equipment. They rode high when times were good, but never saw the need to invest, never had that foresight. In fact, at Christmas, I was having a debate with an older family member decrying that the factory he worked at couldn't find anyone to fix the machines (which were well over 60 years old at this point).

    What's the answer, more vocational programs to train workers on machinery that was obsolete twenty years ago? There's absolutely a need for skilled labor, but it has to be for modernized equipment. This isn't directed at Spool, but just a general musing.

    DisruptedCapitalist
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Aersien wrote: »
    I'm not directly enmeshed in the job market, but I get the sense that often people posting openings just throw out arbitrary lists of qualities and skills that might conceivably be helpful but often aren't relevant. Those may not be the people directly involved in hiring, who may in turn not be the people who end up directly relying on the work of the new hire. Companies have too many HR and management tentacles.

    The result is not only needless hiring hoops and hiring people based on ability to pitch themselves (and sometimes just lie) rather than fit for the position, but a process where both sides reasonably assume the other is misguided at best and malicious at worst. It sets the employee/employee hostility from prior to the start of employment and does that extra little bit to keep everyone jumpy and mistrustful.

    If the luminaries of the tech sector were designing the whole idea of employment de novo right now I think it would come out looking fairly different, in part because lots of it is still holdover from when everyone had to go hunt and gather or starve.

    But also it's psychologically very hard not to have meaningful work to engage in so I don't know. Universal basic income is a good idea, but leaving millions at loose ends is not, and not just in a Puirtan work ethic way. People need to feel that they are producing value, not just existing.

    I suspect that people will find fulfilling hobbies real fast if that happens.
    That's the thing, if I didn't have to run screw machines every night I wouldn't become a completely unproductive person. I'd get better at my guitar, become more competent with Arabic and translate things for people, write more, etc. All the things I find fulfilling but don't have energy to do because I work ten hours a night at a stupid factory in order to afford my apartment. Universal basic income is not perfect but I reject the idea that being a cashier or machine operator or truck driver is more fulfilling than what people would do if they did not have to lose their week to drudgery in order to live.

    Kaputa on
    SleepMan in the MistsLeitnerdispatch.otynicEtiowsaskyknytCommander ZoomMegaMekMvrckCalicawebguy20
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Aersien wrote: »
    I'm not directly enmeshed in the job market, but I get the sense that often people posting openings just throw out arbitrary lists of qualities and skills that might conceivably be helpful but often aren't relevant. Those may not be the people directly involved in hiring, who may in turn not be the people who end up directly relying on the work of the new hire. Companies have too many HR and management tentacles.

    The result is not only needless hiring hoops and hiring people based on ability to pitch themselves (and sometimes just lie) rather than fit for the position, but a process where both sides reasonably assume the other is misguided at best and malicious at worst. It sets the employee/employee hostility from prior to the start of employment and does that extra little bit to keep everyone jumpy and mistrustful.

    If the luminaries of the tech sector were designing the whole idea of employment de novo right now I think it would come out looking fairly different, in part because lots of it is still holdover from when everyone had to go hunt and gather or starve.

    But also it's psychologically very hard not to have meaningful work to engage in so I don't know. Universal basic income is a good idea, but leaving millions at loose ends is not, and not just in a Puirtan work ethic way. People need to feel that they are producing value, not just existing.

    I suspect that people will find fulfilling hobbies real fast if that happens.
    That's the thing, if I didn't have to run screw machines every night I wouldn't become a completely unproductive person. I'd get better at my guitar, become more competent with Arabic and translate things for people, write more, etc. All the things I find fulfilling but don't have energy to do because I work ten hours a night at a stupid factory in order to afford my apartment. Universal basic income is not perfect but I reject the idea that being a cashier or machine operator or truck driver is more fulfilling than what people would do if they did not have to lose their week to drudgery in order to live.

    Yeah, my job mostly exists to get in the way of me programming more and learning machine learning and practicing knitting.

    If UBI became a thing (and... my job were purely boring as opposed to an attempt to get a doctorate in neuroscience) I'd probably set up an Etsy shop and sell things like body oils and candles while practicing various other crafts and computer stuff.

    SleepCalica
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Aersien wrote: »
    I'm not directly enmeshed in the job market, but I get the sense that often people posting openings just throw out arbitrary lists of qualities and skills that might conceivably be helpful but often aren't relevant. Those may not be the people directly involved in hiring, who may in turn not be the people who end up directly relying on the work of the new hire. Companies have too many HR and management tentacles.

    The result is not only needless hiring hoops and hiring people based on ability to pitch themselves (and sometimes just lie) rather than fit for the position, but a process where both sides reasonably assume the other is misguided at best and malicious at worst. It sets the employee/employee hostility from prior to the start of employment and does that extra little bit to keep everyone jumpy and mistrustful.

    If the luminaries of the tech sector were designing the whole idea of employment de novo right now I think it would come out looking fairly different, in part because lots of it is still holdover from when everyone had to go hunt and gather or starve.

    But also it's psychologically very hard not to have meaningful work to engage in so I don't know. Universal basic income is a good idea, but leaving millions at loose ends is not, and not just in a Puirtan work ethic way. People need to feel that they are producing value, not just existing.

    I suspect that people will find fulfilling hobbies real fast if that happens.
    That's the thing, if I didn't have to run screw machines every night I wouldn't become a completely unproductive person. I'd get better at my guitar, become more competent with Arabic and translate things for people, write more, etc. All the things I find fulfilling but don't have energy to do because I work ten hours a night at a stupid factory in order to afford my apartment. Universal basic income is not perfect but I reject the idea that being a cashier or machine operator or truck driver is more fulfilling than what people would do if they did not have to lose their week to drudgery in order to live.

    I'd end up starting a business, because I wouldn't be destitute.

    Basic Income creates wealth. I've had the ability to start businesses in the past but I just don't like the risk of "hey I might not eat for 3 years, but on the 4th year, I'll be a king."

    Ladies.
    QuidDoctorArchLoisLaneMartini_Philosopherdispatch.otynicDisruptedCapitalistMegaMekCalica
  • PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    For a similar anecdote, we were ordering some large pumps from a company in southern california, and as part of the process we visited the company and got a tour of the shop. The owner mentioned that it was really difficult to find people with any relevant training from any nearby school (nearby being all of southern california), though fortunately they were pretty good at training and retention.

    Turns out that they manufacture their largest pumps on a machine that was used to make battleship guns (up to 60 inch) in WWII. While a cool little piece of history, it's somewhat easy to see why they might have trouble finding people with experience on that bad boy.

    As mentioned they were (or claimed to be) good at training and retaining the people they had, but as your workforce retires (ha) or moves on where the hell are you going to find anyone to do that without training them yourself?


  • AersienAersien Registered User regular
    I don't have the hard evidence to back it up and obviously there's work that's miserable and draining. But anecdotally there are a lot of people who psychologically handle not having required work poorly. What you can find sustaining as a hobby isn't always sustaining as your kind of sole source of self-worth.

    Maybe what's needed is aggressive eudaimonia so people are better equipped for self-oriented activity without external reinforcement or need.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I'll be honest, in case of basic income I would probably play video games all day. Maybe I would freelance code if the income was not high enough to meet my quality of life expectations.

    But who knows, maybe I would get bored and try to make it big on YouTube or seriously try writing.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    Aistanzepherin
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    That's the thing, if I didn't have to run screw machines every night I wouldn't become a completely unproductive person. I'd get better at my guitar, become more competent with Arabic and translate things for people, write more, etc. All the things I find fulfilling but don't have energy to do because I work ten hours a night at a stupid factory in order to afford my apartment. Universal basic income is not perfect but I reject the idea that being a cashier or machine operator or truck driver is more fulfilling than what people would do if they did not have to lose their week to drudgery in order to live.

    Yeah, my job mostly exists to get in the way of me programming more and learning machine learning and practicing knitting.

    If UBI became a thing (and... my job were purely boring as opposed to an attempt to get a doctorate in neuroscience) I'd probably set up an Etsy shop and sell things like body oils and candles while practicing various other crafts and computer stuff.

    But that's not really how economics works. Academia gets a bit more complicated since its non-profit nominally, but a normal private sector job works like this.

    An employer is selling a product or service and in the course of that they need certain things done. They employ someone to use their labor to turn the employer's capital (IP, resources, infrastructure etc) into something to sell. The combined cost to put those things together can't match or exceed the amount they'll get by selling it or they lose money and eventually go out of business.

    The market is bad at humanity but its pretty good at making sure Labor creates more wealth than they get paid. Where it goes wrong is it maximizes wealth created - labor costs too much.

    The entire reason we (USians) live in a highly developed, extremely rich society is because of people doing their job. Even putting aside the costs of UBI being a living wage (larger than the entire federal budget prohibitive), it would be explicitly shrinking the economy in a big way for everyone it takes out of the labor force. Just because a job isn't fun or has low pay doesn't mean it doesn't provide value. The reason being an amateur Arabic translator or Etsy dabbler isn't viable now is largely because they aren't nearly as productive as jobs that have been identified as viable. And when an economy shrinks, secondary jobs like that don't become more viable. They're the first to go because people have less spare money to spend on non-essentials (which itself would shrink the economy). A weaker economy with higher costs means stagflation, which is basically the worst state an economy can be in.

    This is one of the most insidious things right wing ideology has put out into the zeitgeist is that labor is worthless and executives are the ones who "create wealth." Labor creates wealth. Taking labor out of the economic fucks the economy. A prosperous economy is what allows both a social safety net and activities that aren't purely productive - education and art and hobbies - something people can spend time on.

    That's also generally why people are unemployed long term. When they try to get a job, it doesn't seem like they can do the job well enough for their potentially employer to benefit. Sometimes that's due to shitty reasons that should be illegal like discrimination over a protected class. But if I'm hiring someone for a job that requires trust and I see the guy has been convicted of fraud and beating his wife (taking one of the examples from the article), I am almost certainly not hiring that guy. If a HS dropout with few skills, a criminal record and sketchy job history applies, its really hard to have confidence that person is going to be a good employee.

    The employment situation in this country is strong. The least employable people, those who have major black marks in their history and/or who lack job skills, are the most likely to be unemployed. That's how its supposed to work. This is one of those rare situations where the corporation isn't the bad guy. The way forward is to figure out how to allow those people who are ready to not be assholes build up trust, but that's not going to be a quick path because almost anyone can be a non-asshole (or not get caught being an asshole) for a month or six, or to get those lacking skills enrolled and finishing training that will give them necessary skills.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    LostNinja
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    In a lot of cases, IMO, those long lists of requirements are really there just to limit/thin the number of applicants down to something HR can skim through and/or interview in a reasonable amount of time. The labor oversupply is that bad (in some fields) right now.

    Not in Entry level IT. We want basic computer troubleshooting skills and some technical mental habits, and we get resumes from "literally no IT at all" to "15yrs SysAdmin"... but we get very few actual entry level apps.

    schussSleep
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    In a lot of cases, IMO, those long lists of requirements are really there just to limit/thin the number of applicants down to something HR can skim through and/or interview in a reasonable amount of time. The labor oversupply is that bad (in some fields) right now.

    Not in Entry level IT. We want basic computer troubleshooting skills and some technical mental habits, and we get resumes from "literally no IT at all" to "15yrs SysAdmin"... but we get very few actual entry level apps.

    what even would that resume be?

    if entry level isn't 'no skills' it's what, people who helped with IT stuff as an extra duty at their last job? people confident enough to put their hobbyist skills on their resume?

    that's gonna be kind of rare, I'm not surprised

    my first IT job the best I could put on my resume was that I'd done phone support before and had built my home computer, but a critical eye might've tossed it into the 'no skills' bucket

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    In a lot of cases, IMO, those long lists of requirements are really there just to limit/thin the number of applicants down to something HR can skim through and/or interview in a reasonable amount of time. The labor oversupply is that bad (in some fields) right now.

    Not in Entry level IT. We want basic computer troubleshooting skills and some technical mental habits, and we get resumes from "literally no IT at all" to "15yrs SysAdmin"... but we get very few actual entry level apps.

    Does that just mean no experience or no knowledge at all? Because the former is literally what "entry level" should mean.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

    I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first....

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    KraintGnome-InterruptusMrVyngaardMegaMekMan in the MistsSmrtnikCalica
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

    I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first....

    Can you explain? Because the options here are either every citizen gets the same amount of basic income, or a married couple gets less then two single people. The first is neutral with regards to marriage, but the second one disincentivizes marriage, and does corrode the social order as a result.

    DisruptedCapitalist
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

    I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first....

    Can you explain? Because the options here are either every citizen gets the same amount of basic income, or a married couple gets less then two single people. The first is neutral with regards to marriage, but the second one disincentivizes marriage, and does corrode the social order as a result.

    So would throwing government provided pies at married couples in the street. I don't think anyone's suggesting that though.

  • KraintKraint Registered User regular
    It would(should, could...) work on the same lines as deductions do in your taxes today. If you file jointly, you pay less of your single income as taxes. If you file separately, your wife gets a gov't check but the taxes on your single income go up by that same amount since you have fewer adult dependents.

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Also, if you're unemployed and applying somewhere - try to find a contact for the job with a phone or direct email and ask for the hiring manager info for an informational interview to learn more about the job. Quite often in f500 land we're forced to use terrible recruiters and don't see all the apps. Doing the above gives you a chance at an in.

    LostNinjaCaedwyr
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

    I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first....

    Can you explain? Because the options here are either every citizen gets the same amount of basic income, or a married couple gets less then two single people. The first is neutral with regards to marriage, but the second one disincentivizes marriage, and does corrode the social order as a result.

    What I'm seeing here is a barn door slowly creaking on it's hinges with an hommage to Once Upon a Time in the West. Cut to barn interior. Empty but for a few half eaten bales of hay.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
    tynicMegaMek
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Aersien wrote: »
    I don't have the hard evidence to back it up and obviously there's work that's miserable and draining. But anecdotally there are a lot of people who psychologically handle not having required work poorly. What you can find sustaining as a hobby isn't always sustaining as your kind of sole source of self-worth.

    Maybe what's needed is aggressive eudaimonia so people are better equipped for self-oriented activity without external reinforcement or need.

    So, more anecdota for the pile: I have a Stem based trades degree. Worked for few years in industry, got the wife through her degree, she started a small business while I worked, and eventually we got to the point where i quit and we both run the business. We make stuff for games (which is why I am being light on details, we're a gaming company and I don't want to run afoul of self promotion rules) and run machinery to make product. After two years of running the gear, I effectively got everything set up to the point where I automated my whole job so that my wife can handle it all herself.

    I got so bored being underemployed that I got depressed, and it hit my self esteem HARD. Which is crazy, but where I found myself. My material needs are taken care of, I own the means of production and have a semi-robotic setup to do work for me. And all I want is to work, because the American work ethic apparently owns my soul. I have hobbies that are very satisfying on many levels, but I want to feel productive. To fix it I'm going back to school for an advanced science 4 year degree starting in a couple of weeks, so that I can hopefully find a job and contribute to society again in a meaningful way.

    When we talk about UBI as a solution, we need to understand that for a great many people work provides MEANING to them. That people want to contribute to society in a real way, and simply have your ends meet isn't enough. Its certainly a start, and someone who is living on the proceeds of robotic labor (The future is weird yo) I wouldn't go back, but its only the first step in terms of building a society based on not having to work.

    Tldr: I have the most first world of problems with robotic labor providing for me, but feel that discussion of unemployment is more complicated that just providing a living, people WANT to work, because at least in the states the cultural value is that work is good for you, and any solutions to unemployment have to take human psychological needs and cultural values into account.

    I like children. Provided they go home with their parents at the end of the day.
    themightypuckLostNinjaShadowfireCommander Zoomspool32PantsBCalica
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

    I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first....

    Can you explain? Because the options here are either every citizen gets the same amount of basic income, or a married couple gets less then two single people. The first is neutral with regards to marriage, but the second one disincentivizes marriage, and does corrode the social order as a result.

    If everyone has a basic income, no one need stay in a relationship just because they can't support themselves. Arguably this disincentivizes marriage and "corrodes the social order" by promoting independence.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    tynicForarMegaMek
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    i don't have much of an opinion about unemployment but i'm pretty firmly in favour of disincentivising marriage and corroding the social order

    skyknytCommander ZoomHerrCrontynicSleepMegaMekMan in the MistsAlbino BunnyMahnmutCptKemzik
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Astaereth wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    If there werw Basic Income, Belasco would be bringing in an extra giant pile of cash instead of being completely uncompensated for the time she spent raising our family, while I worked a standard job, enabling us to live like DINKs on a single income.

    Unless you intend to disincentivize marriage and corrode the social order...

    I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first....

    Can you explain? Because the options here are either every citizen gets the same amount of basic income, or a married couple gets less then two single people. The first is neutral with regards to marriage, but the second one disincentivizes marriage, and does corrode the social order as a result.

    If everyone has a basic income, no one need stay in a relationship just because they can't support themselves. Arguably this disincentivizes marriage and "corrodes the social order" by promoting independence.

    On the other hand, people who love each other don't have to break up due to income vs. goals situations. If my career path wasn't full of pitfalls I would most likely be Married with Children right now. Unemployment is a loving-family-killer.

    Incenjucar on
    Commander Zoomspool32tynicAngelHedgiemrondeauAstaerethbowenSleepCaptain MarcusGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMan in the MistsAiouaDoodmannMvrckCalica
Sign In or Register to comment.