Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#2If you work remotely, a good cure for boredom is working 2+ jobs with minimal responsibilities or expectations. Spinning plates, keeping a mediocre output for keeping the job, is a great wealth and boredom fix.
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#3If you work remotely, a good cure for boredom is working 2+ jobs with minimal responsibilities or expectations. Spinning plates, keeping a mediocre output for keeping the job, is a great wealth and boredom fix.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#4If you work remotely, a good cure for boredom is working 2+ jobs with minimal responsibilities or expectations. Spinning plates, keeping a mediocre output for keeping the job, is a great wealth and boredom fix.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
[flagged]
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
[flagged]
If capitalism cares about anything, it's economic growth. It's unclear to me how half-assing two jobs is good for economic growth.
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#6If you work remotely, a good cure for boredom is working 2+ jobs with minimal responsibilities or expectations. Spinning plates, keeping a mediocre output for keeping the job, is a great wealth and boredom fix.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
> The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win
Yes, that is how our economic system works. What, are you under the illusion we still have some kind of social contract or moral responsibility toward society? If my CEO doesn't, why the hell should I? For the record I don't think it's good, but I didn't invent the game, we're all just trying to play it as best we can.
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If capitalism cares about anything, it's economic growth. It's unclear to me how half-assing two jobs is good for economic growth.
If you perform well enough that your boss doesn't notice, clearly it's providing the value you're getting paid for it? And getting 2-3 jobs out of a person is a multiplier to growth in theory, since they augment more other workers labour.
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#8If you work remotely, a good cure for boredom is working 2+ jobs with minimal responsibilities or expectations. Spinning plates, keeping a mediocre output for keeping the job, is a great wealth and boredom fix.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
As tempting as it is having been unemployed for fifteen months to get indignant, if someone can hold down two simultaneous jobs those jobs are probably not worth having. I could have worked a second job while at my last. That’s a big part of why I left.
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
> The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win Yes, that is how our economic system works. What, are you under the illusion we still have some kind of social contract or moral responsibility toward society? If my CEO doesn't, why the hell should I? For the record I don't think it's good, but I didn't invent the game, we're all just trying to play it as best we can.
imo it's not useful to act as if the social contract is completely gone or that it will ever be completely gone and I say that as someone who surprises himself every year with how much further I have to lower my expectations on humanity. But... there will always be some kind of social contract because life without trust isn't possible, you'd have to be a machine under total surveillance with iron clad checks on every twitch of your finger otherwise.This is all just the ebb and flow of capitalist desires: One side tries to extract every bit of profit out of you and the other side tries to do the same. In that struggle hopefully both sides end up in an equilibrium that is humane and fair and no single side wins.
Re: Suppressing boredom at work hurts future productivity
#10If you work remotely, a good cure for boredom is working 2+ jobs with minimal responsibilities or expectations. Spinning plates, keeping a mediocre output for keeping the job, is a great wealth and boredom fix.
It's a shit market and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed. The other job seeker loses, your boss loses, you win. In Cipolla's formula this is "bandit with a side of stupid."
>and you're taking someone's job and doing it half assed.
if we're being frank: one person's half assed may be better than someone less talented but throwing all their effort trying to finish tasks. Talent isn't equal, even if pay for the position has a relatively narrow range (working twice as hard at one job =/= twice the pay/benefits).
I think there is certainly a conversation to have about "overemployment" and how that can cut into the ability for other talent to be fostered, but I'm not going to pretend that 90%+ of companies ever cared about training their employees or even keeping them for more than 2 years. If they could get some person with 20 YOE working at half their output for 150k (because they then have a 2nd job doing the same thing), I doubt the moral quandries would even come into effect. Just potential legal/NDA issues.