11–20 of 54 posts
The recent push for return to office seems to indicate that many places are not capable of managing what their workers actually produce.
It shouldn't matter if (and it is a big if) management is actually managing employees deliverable outputs. But if you have management that isn't capable of measuring and managing what the employees deliver, then they revert to just managing the employees time. The recent push for return to office seems to indicate that many places are not capable of managing what their workers actually produce.
It's not that they can't, it's that the people in power to make this change would themselves be obsoleted if they do so. Many higher-level positions derive their perceived usefulness and prestige by the number of reports under them and the amount of busywork produced even if said busywork is counter-productive to the bottom-line.
A laser focus on deliverables would signify the death of middle-management and various "facilitator" positions who currently enjoy cushy jobs without contributing anything essential.
I've never really understood the opposition to this besides non-competes et al. Ultimately I think work should be about delivery of a product or service not time spent, and if an enterprising person can deliver a business a product or service and at the same time deliver something else for another business, why shouldn't they be able to? I've always noticed this disturbing tendency in some people to assume that since…
Do consultant contracts tend to impose these contraints?
Disclaimer: contractor so my response might be obviously biased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the master/slave relationship isn't the best metaphor for voluntary employment...
It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free. Sure, the slavery is "distributed" across multiple actors such as landlords & profit off the whole concept of property as an asset, but ultimately the net result is the same - you have to work just to be afforded shelter. The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slav…
Prison.
> The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slavery from the old days?
Sounds like your definition of slavery is nobody taking care of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the master/slave relationship isn't the best metaphor for voluntary employment...
It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free. Sure, the slavery is "distributed" across multiple actors such as landlords & profit off the whole concept of property as an asset, but ultimately the net result is the same - you have to work just to be afforded shelter. The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slav…
"Former" is the key. A lot of people will say things like that when they're no (longer?) in position to actually make a difference - it's a safe way to garner sympathy and attention without actually making the decision and be responsible for its consequences. I can guarantee you he wouldn't have the same opinion if he was still in his position and had political power to be able to actually allow this. People working…
Are you really calling engineers who earn 300k and more at those companies “slaves”?
Still, costs are in line with those wages, so my mortgage was costing me ~$5k/month, my electricity was peaking at $1k/month, my water was $500/month, my property taxes were $1500/month, etc. etc. etc. A high salary doesn't necessarily mean unbound wealth, it just makes living in that VHCOL area comfortable.
Sadly, I still can't afford to stop working, but that's more down to the completely terrible form of "healthcare" that the US employs, and not my actual job.
"Former" is the key. A lot of people will say things like that when they're no (longer?) in position to actually make a difference - it's a safe way to garner sympathy and attention without actually making the decision and be responsible for its consequences. I can guarantee you he wouldn't have the same opinion if he was still in his position and had political power to be able to actually allow this. People working…
It _should_ matter from a perspective of not paying enough money for an employee to meet basic needs and have enough discretionary spending to not need a 2nd job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free. Sure, the slavery is "distributed" across multiple actors such as landlords & profit off the whole concept of property as an asset, but ultimately the net result is the same - you have to work just to be afforded shelter. The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slav…
I'm pretty sure slaves from any era would kill to have my job where I work from home, have various insurances and investments through my employer, make a lot of money that I can spend on whatever I want and more. When you abstract concepts enough, everything becomes similar but current employment in developed countries is nowhere near slavery.
Keep in mind that no employer/business is providing these perks out of the goodness of their heart - they do so because the market is (was?) extremely competitive, but it's not a given that the market will stay competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free. Sure, the slavery is "distributed" across multiple actors such as landlords & profit off the whole concept of property as an asset, but ultimately the net result is the same - you have to work just to be afforded shelter. The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slav…
> It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free. Prison. > The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slavery from the old days? Sounds like your definition of slavery is nobody taking care of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the master/slave relationship isn't the best metaphor for voluntary employment...
It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free. Sure, the slavery is "distributed" across multiple actors such as landlords & profit off the whole concept of property as an asset, but ultimately the net result is the same - you have to work just to be afforded shelter. The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slav…
You're also setting up a catch 22 where things like housing construction, which require labor to exist, are a prerequisite to not having slavery, but if no one has to do labor to construct housing then where does it come from?