Its About Ethics in Hiring Practices

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Its About Ethics in Hiring Practices

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Private Speech posted:

As a full-time UK computer toucher I just don't get paid for overtime, even if I have to do it to get the job done.

Not sure of the legality of it all, but apparently it is?

Then again I'm not exactly starving I suppose, even if the money is nowhere near as great as in the US.

Only management should be salary and even then maybe not.

My standing agreement with my employer is I'm non exempt meaning i log hours, but i get comp time, meaning i get to take time and a half off later.

Then i actually take time off.

This is why i always advocate for what I have being what everyone should get, because the standard work culture doesnt allow people to be compensated for their extra work, or take time off or not have anyone get grumpy with you over it.

Reminder that I work in local government.

# ¿ May 17, 2019 14:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 22:15

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Its kind of odd to me that you'd discuss work methodology while ignoring that people have their basic needs met the entire philosophy of your job is your identity most likely falls apart.

In socialist utopia there are professional dungeon masters.

# ¿ May 24, 2019 02:19

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Paradoxish posted:

I mean, saying that doctors are only doctors because it pays well is actually a huge indictment against compensation as a good motivator. It's a tacit admission that our system as-is completely fails to sort people into occupations based on interest or aptitude, which implies that it's actually wildly inefficient.

Edit- Just to be clear, I'm talking about high paid jobs specifically here. The vast majority of high paid jobs are good jobs and most people would want to do them if they had the opportunity. The parts of being a doctor that are really terrible are largely artificial, and there are undoubtedly tons of people who would rather have the opportunity to learn medicine than flip burgers. Lots of really terrible jobs pay basically nothing.

Imagine if chefs had 15 hour work weeks.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 03:01

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

This thread has served a genuine good purpose for me as its helped me understand where the general edge of understanding is in the forum in regards to UBI, the value or labor and how much capitalism still dictates the language of people ready to stand in solidarity.

Three points, UBI is the next step away from needless suffering, part of the point is its a step up we can manage now until we get our bearings and conceive of the next one.

Two, most of the waste in government isnt because programs are bad, its because theyve been corrupted by means testing which creates more administrative overhead and issues of waste than if you just give people money.

Three, it is my sincere hope that once government service isn't culturally anathema to so many people because of point two, more people would be like me and do the work that needs to be done because its gratifying and it just happens to also help me exist.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 15:43

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

V. Illych L. posted:

i looked at the numbers and it turns out that i was vastly overestimating the cut lol

france's gdp per capita in 1960 was roughly $1300, a tenth or so of current gdp per capita globally

so, uh, yeah

e. this going by the googlable world bank data; obviously not bulletproof for various reasons (gdp is a bad measure of... things) but it gets the point across imo

Does that number really matter with billionares existing? Remember what the Tax rate was for such individuals during that time period.

# ¿ May 28, 2019 16:14

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

KingNastidon posted:

Right, but people are arguing for equal UBI (which is what standard UBI would be ignoring cost of living differences) and wage parity irrespective of job. Basically completely equal pre and post tax income for those of working age. Question is how that would affect allocating resources to industries that provide services that provide basic necessities as they're not always enjoyable jobs.

All of this is completely hypothetical because we currently can't get enough votes to pass slightly higher progressive income taxes or equitable services like M4A just within the US, much less enacting global communism where US wealth is given to the developing world. Just was trying to understand how you compel people to work hard but necessary jobs when the alternative is calling any activity a job and earning exactly the same UBI + wage.

No this is the strawman you've constructed and tried to bully people into.

Further, we almost had UBI under Nixon but the Democrats killed it.

# ¿ May 29, 2019 03:34

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

If you all are going to be ignorant enough to actually say "actually ~~good things~~ UBI aren't possible" I'm going to have to take your leftist cards and burn them in a satanic ritual to make an effort thread. This will make me especially cranky because the utilitarian value of me spending me free time correcting the perception that theres no difference between good and bad things is not how I want to spend my limited leisure time and thus is violence against me, you wrong people on the internet!

Ardennes posted:

A UBI would also make the poor completely dependent on existing power structures, and in reality, make other social improvements more financially difficult.

Even the US has limits to financing although they are much larger than any other state.

A UBI is still better than nothing but I would rather see social democracy than it or something significantly better.

You know who killed UBI in the US under Nixon? Democrats. We have learned nothing, because their objection was "it didnt go far enough".

E: I mean stop and think what argument and who's argument you just advocated Ardennes, that the US cant do UBI because the land is too big. As if money needs to be hauled around in Wells Fargo stage coaches and has nothing to do with the literally richest nation in the history of humanity mis-allocating productive value.

RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 16:34 on May 30, 2019

# ¿ May 30, 2019 16:28

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

I feel like I'm going insane when the argument is constantly that any policy that fits neatly into the "capitalism still exists" slot is summarily dismissed. It smacks ironically of the same weakness the Democrats have been exhibiting for the past 40 years, that the process of how we get there is somehow more imortant than if we actually help people.

Start with this and suddenly this debate seems historically trite:

http://what-when-how.com/the-american-economy/family-assistance-plan-fap/

# ¿ May 31, 2019 16:00

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Somfin posted:

You have expressed this part clearly. The part that amazes all of us is that your logic goes like so:

1. Suffering workers are more likely to unionise
2. UBI will reduce suffering
3. UBI will therefore reduce unionisation
4. Therefore UBI must be opposed

It's entirely logical but also monstrous.

Its this.
I have been trying to articulate it for like a week now but this sums it up.

V. Illych L. posted:

you're leaving out the consequence of non-organisation being more suffering for all! your arguments are that if only we make things immediately better for people, they will remain better. this is utopian; we must maintain and maximise working-class power or any progress we make will be undone or subverted in short order.

i mean you're just restating the blairite position - we've known for ten years that that position just doesn't work

I dont know what to do with this level of cynicism. Whats the opposite of humanism?

# ¿ Jun 3, 2019 07:55

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

RuanGacho posted:

Whats the opposite of humanism?

Lmao:

first google result posted:

Evil is anything that creates strife and suffering. This is antagonistic to the values and definition of a humanist and therefore would be the opposite of humanism. Egoism is concern for one's own interests and welfare. This is also the opposite of humanism.Jul 12, 2015

# ¿ Jun 3, 2019 08:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 22:15

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

V. Illych L. posted:

also in a non-market socialism we would clearly need some scheme to allocate scarce resources - i'm simply not convinced that this would practically be much more inefficient than our current way of doing things; recall that major market actors today have a very strong incentive towards enormous inefficiency and practically run planned economies internally. without inefficiency, profits become impossible in a market system (at least under your naive econ101 null model of a free market: all revenue would have to be reinvested somehow)

some structures would presumably be market-like, in that you'd go to the grocery store and buy groceries for money, but in general one would hope that we could regulate a collective reduction and shift in production along more sustainable lines, at the cost of somewhat reduced consumption and eating the rich

Have you considered that society is a construct of human technology and cultural ritual?

Markets are not inherently capitalist, just capitalists primary tool for hanging 500 kilo picture frames.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2019 16:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Its About Ethics in Hiring Practices