|
I'm not sure looking for work and hiring people suck in remotely commensurable ways or degrees. Like your applicant is taking time out of their life and work to come to you in order to make you money. You are being paid to find out whether or not you can extract value from this applicant. It's kind of a one way relationship. Seems weird to say "yes but they have obligations to us, the people looking to make money off them, before we even give them anything" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:35 on May 9, 2019 |
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Alternatively if you don't want to pay more, consider increasing unemployment, underempoyment, or depressing wages in the economy generally, along with decreasing the viability of self sustaining labour outside the wage economy, that will make people more desperate for work and make your job much easier, plus you can pay them less.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm not the kind of capitalist who can mess with any of those settings. Perhaps this might inform why different countries have different levels of willingness to turn up to your job interviews, however.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
What about practical alternatives? Do people cohabit in larger families more often? Do they work unpaid in exchange for keep? If you're in a rural area is all the land enclosed/do people grow/hunt much? Is squatting or unsanctioned housing much of a thing? If people have places to live and food to eat without involving money then working for money becomes less attractive. State welfare is more of a thing because all the land is owned and policed and because people are displaced into environments away from their support networks such as into/between cities for work and once you start doing that people are reliant on cash to survive rather than having anything else to fall back on. It's also encouraged by the smart capitalist because what it effectively is is a subsidy to private business, because it all goes immediately into the local supermarket and landlord's pockets. Cost of living is also relevant, as is city design, if people need cars to work for example then welfare means less, because it doesn't buy you much. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I wish I could get a job that I could automate using irfanview.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
My relationship with my employer is transactional, and I don't work with my employer. My relationship with my co workers is comradely, and I do work with them.Mineaiki posted:I’ve actually found my most “transactional” bosses to be some of my best, due to their respecting me as a human being who needs to work in order to make money. On the other hand, the other bosses, who I will call “lifestyle bosses”, tend to be some of the worst. They want you to hurl your heart and soul into the job because of course you love it. So you do that, and you stake a great deal of your self-worth on it, but the boss of course can just hide behind “the budget”/“corporate”/his/her boss when they inevitably deny your devoted rear end a raise. So it’s personal for you, transactional for them. Also this, gently caress if I want to work with some prick who thinks this is a lifestyle choice and not a paycheck. My immediate boss doesn't and that's a big part of why I like him. He knows it's about money and doesn't bullshit you otherwise. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:49 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Healthcare is a little different here, too. 7ish percent of the employee's gross salary gets directed to the health insurance provider of their choice. There are public options and private options and different grades within each that give different coverage levels and access to different clinics and etc. Employees can elect to contribute more but they pay at minimum the 7ish percent and their choice of health plan is totally theirs. Wait so they get paid 7% less but they get to choose which other knobhead gets it? That doesn't sound like a great choice tbh.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you accept a marxist description of capitalism, then yes. But if a person's ability to for example touch computers isn't monetizable without the context of a business then there's value in the COMBINATION of their labor with the enterprise rather than merely their labor, and the business is due some income because of that. IMO that's a better description of what's going on than Marx. Maybe the reason for that is because of the existence of the business taking up space.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Not to mention that the vast majority of Americans don't even have $400 in the bank to cover an emergency bill. Well you see that's because they aren't smart with money. They should invest in property.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Whole lotta people not willing to accept that they live in a bad society and loads of people get hosed over unfairly, and gotta come up with some serious mental gymnasitcs to suggest why that's not true, or in OP's case, why they're clearly not part of the problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Wasn't monopoly originally designed with extra rules that were supposed to take it beyond being accumulation simulator?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
JBP posted:I think it's more that rostering is scheduled tightly thanks to computerised time management and corporate edicts that overtime never be offered, so if overtime absolutely must be done, it goes to an old timer/pet. Or alternatively they just don't pay you extra for it. What are you gonna do, leave and find somewhere else that also doesn't pay extra for it?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
JBP posted:Oh yeah but I guess we're talking in the realm of the rules. Most places roster hard enough to kill overtime and run split shifts and poo poo so they don't need to screw anyone illegally. It's all above board. I might be confusing the concept of overtime but I'm pretty sure a lot of the people I work with just don't have a contract that stipulates overtime involves a higher pay rate. You can either take the extra shifts or not, at the normal rate. My job of course has zero contracted hours so the concept is a bit alien to me anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
I always figured it was just part of your contract, not that I've ever had one that involved overtime or a salaried position, but afaik they can just put it in your contract that you can be expected to do X amount of overtime on whatever conditions and strongly encourage you to sign that thing that makes you exempt from EU working hour limits.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Everyone who is poor could choose not to be poor. Simple.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People make points like this and it makes me think they are the ones who believe in a Just World. Why do you believe that what a worker deserves corresponds to absolutely as much as an employer will pay? You wouldn't view any other economic transaction that way. If you personally hire a plumber or a landscaper or whatever else you're not going to volunteer to pay them extra, at least most likely not, just because you happen to have that amount available. You'd probably (again, idk you, but I would hope) quote around and try to keep the price down so that when other things come up for you that require you to spend money, you have more available. I think we'd probably all recognize that as normal and a good practice? Why is it any different when you're receiving the check instead of writing it? You are saying this literally as the operator of a company, and the "skill" you're advocating for is people arguing with you about money. Your position is that if people do not argue well enough you should not have to pay them what they are worth, regardless of whether arguing has anything to do with their actual job. This is an extremely flimsy attempt to shift the burden of paying people properly off your shoulders, as the one with 100% of the power in this situation, onto your prospective employees who are dependent on you, as the capital holder, for their employment, and who are doing you a favour by working for you to enrich you. This is the sole purpose of the "game" as you call it, to obfuscate your role in the process, your responsibility, your choice to underpay people, in service only of a practice which exists to do that.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Why is someone's labor worth X and and not 0.5*X? If you want to say that a worker should be paid what they're worth then at the very least there has to be some objective way to measure what that is. So what is it, in your opinion? How much money do they make you? That's how much they're worth.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How much money can they make without me and what I do? Because if that sum is less than the one you're referring to then my organization is doing some work that deserves to get paid out, too. I don't know, have you considered turning the company into a cooperative and seeing exactly how much your labour contributes to the organization, and letting everybody else who works there decide together who contributes what and who should get paid what? That seems like a way to find out. Or are you worried that might make your share a bit smaller than you'd like?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If they want to buy me out then sure, why not? Are you planning to pay them enough so that's an option? Or are you planning to keep skimming their contribution to the company in order to inflate its price, under your name, of course.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You seem to have a particular view on this, under which literally nothing I could do other than put my neck in the guillotine could possibly be above board. As a much vaunted small business owner and responsible guardian of the sum of capital over which you hold authority, do you perhaps have some... vague ideas about how much the labour of the various people working at your enterprise might contribute to the process? And any ideas about how long and how hard those people might work, relative to each other, and relative to the degree of compensation they receive?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
And once you've answered my above post, do you think if you did do some sort of, informal consultation among your employees, possibly anonymously, whether or not their assessment of the relative contributions and compensations in your noble enterprise would line up with yours?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:I get the point you are making but majoritarian voting on who gets paid what is unlikely to result in people getting paid what their labor is worth I said "decide together" not "majority vote" Of course if a clear majority did somehow occur that resulted in our benevolent overlord getting fired, well, maybe he just needs to get better at negotiating, the game is to the employee's benefit after all.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Man responsible for continued employment of multiple people incapable of judging value of labour. I give it a year before he sells the company for magic beans.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:it's hard to run the business without them. That suggests they're making you quite a lot of money.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
rscott posted:How do you even begin to adequately quantify the labor that most people put into an organization in the first place? The "add the total revenue up and divide it by the number of employee hours worked" method will give you a much better idea than the capitalist one which is "I the big smart boss man work constantly and a thousand times harder than everyone else and therefore I should get all the money"
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:But not all that I generate is me alone. I am able to generate more value as part of the organizatio and society than I would alone. Depending on the year only accounting for the cash generated I'd say I get 30 - 60 % (before taxes) and that gives me a very decent income. If you are able to work together in order to generate more value then the products of that cooperation should be equally distributed too, because you all worked together to produce it. As far as society goes yeah, you're all products of an education system and healthcare and poo poo and you need some form of tax to supply those social services. But that's also ultimately going back to you, or perhaps is paying off the debt you accrued to society earlier in your life.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Like I said what proportion of the total labour hours do you work, and how much would that proprtion be of the company's total turnover? Or failing that, what would happen if you stopped doing your job? What are other jobs at the company that would cause similar amounts of disruption in their absence paid?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Someone less competent would get my position. I've watched the repercussions of that a couple times now as I've transferred between locations. I can't be specfic. OK clever dick, what would happen if your job stopped being done. I don't actually care I'm suggesting this is a method you can use to evaluate the necessity of your labour.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
rscott posted:Like in my case, we would not be able to sell about 95% of the parts we currently make. There's no possible way they wouldn't replace the functions I perform, so that makes me essential. But does that make me important or deserving of higher compensation? I mean personally I subscribe to the idea that almost all human labour should be paid the same because it's all hours of someone's life. But if you're advocating the idea that people, on the whole, are paid fairly, then if your job is irreplaceable then compare it to the other irreplaceable jobs at your company and then compare wages.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
If we operated on a system that emphasised the concept of use value as a means of apportioning the means of living then a lot of people would probably be working a lot less and living a lot better, and the belief in that is an important motivator for doing anything but accepting whatever you're given.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Presumably a skilled and highly educated worker is deploying years of accumulated experience compared to an untrained person who started the job yesterday. The skilled worker is more productive, and you can construct an argument that this "entitles" them to more, but I would suggest that a person-oriented concept of work still shouldn't really care about that. Unless you take the position that human life is not equally valuable then all hours of human life should be valued equally.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If someone requires years of training to reach a certain level of capability and you compensate them at the same rate as someone with far less experience then you aren't really weighing the full amount of time that the first person invested. Why shouldn't they be paid for the training too? They're not doing it for fun. Somfin posted:"Training is an investment that you, the worker, make in order to make more money later" is a construct that you're assuming should remain true. Yeah exactly, I'm training to make someone else money, they should bloody well pay for it and pay me for the time investment. This is already true for a lot of training, trying to fob off the costs onto the worker is just companies being bloody miserly as usual.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
And society benefits from their increased productivity, or their ability to perform a skilled job, the time they invest should be compensated when they invest it. If your employer needs you to learn to do something then they (sometimes) already pay for the training and for you to spend the time doing the training, on the basis that they will make that investment back through your increased ability. Why should this not be universal? There are multiple approaches to this such as greater pushes for on-the-job training and socially funded education, but there is no justification whatsoever for expecting people to pay themselves for training/education in the vauge hope that someday they'll see a return for it. Other than, of course, the desire to run education as a business and lazy governments looking to avoid spending money/make people spend more money/give ever more handouts to shithole companies that can't be bothered to do anything for society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:56 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:It's not about equality of outcome. That's a total mischaracterization of leftism imo. I do lol. And it totally is about equality of outcome. Coolness Averted posted:Some people will do things because society needs it, they have a proclivity or skill for it, or they actually enjoy doing an activity. Also in the same way capitalism has figured out medics, nurses, nurse practitioners, medical assistants and OR techs can do some of the stuff doctors used to exclusively do. Additionally certain roles are less required than others so you could take a position because of scheduling too. Also medical school and doing your rounds is largely hell now as a way of creating artificial scarcity while making doctors feel they 'earned' their high wages. Also maybe doctors shouldn't have to work really hard, maybe if we got rid of say, lawyers, and insurance providers, and marketing people, and all the other stupid jobs that do nothing, we could free up some people to work in medicine and a big pile of resources and then doctors could work less and get the same pay as other people. Like there is no reason why some jobs should be extremely difficult or dangerous, the reason they're that is because we would rather burn through people than devote resources to improving working conditions, or reconsider whether the labour should be done at all. lovely jobs are the product of someone wanting to extract profit from the labour of the person doing the lovely job by making their job lovely. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 24, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Okay that's fine? The people who want to go acquire skills should get more than people who are content where they are. Why? You pay them for the time investment like any other work, why do they need to be paid more after that? Like if I spend five years doing something that requires no formal training, why should I be paid less than someone who spend two years doing that, one year being paid to train, and then two years doing the trained work? We've both worked five years and been paid for it?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Because their work is more difficult. Why is trained work more difficult? I had to learn to drive a car but driving the car is not more difficult work than the work I do at the place I drive the car to. I learned to do it such that it became easy to do.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I mean I'm on my phone so you'll have to wait for a better answer later but I'm a bit incredulous that you think there's no difference between like say brain surgery and running prep for the dinner rush. I think the brain surgery takes a lot longer to learn to do at all but the point of learning to do it is so that you can do it as easily as you can other work.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Even if the work itself is the same difficulty wise because you're good at it, it carries more stress and more poo poo to deal with mentally and emotionally. A certain % of people you treat will die and it'll be your fault and a cook doesn't have to deal with anything like that. Gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that there are a huge number of people out there doing untrained work who are emotionally, mentally, and physically obliterated by it. If you don't want the responsibility of doing brain surgery, don't be a brain surgeon?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Like if you're a surgeon sure some people you work on might die, but if you're a good surgeon we would hope that most of the ones where you have agency in the matter will live because of your work. And I would much rather someone be doing that work because they care about it rather than because they get paid a lot for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Well now you're just making a different point. There will still be any number of necessary but undesirable jobs that need incentives for people to do, if they can't be automated. Name some, we can talk about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 02:04
|
|