SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the work-like-a-dog-/-fingers-to-the-bone-/-nose-to-the-grindstone dept.
Mary’s story looks different to different people. Within the ghoulishly cheerful Lyft public-relations machinery, Mary is an exemplar of hard work and dedication—the latter being, perhaps, hard to come by in a company that refuses to classify its drivers as employees. Mary’s entrepreneurial spirit—taking ride requests while she was in labor!—is an “exciting” example of how seamless and flexible app-based employment can be. Look at that hustle! You can make a quick buck with Lyft anytime, even when your cervix is dilating.
[...] It does require a fairly dystopian strain of doublethink for a company to celebrate how hard and how constantly its employees must work to make a living, given that these companies are themselves setting the terms. And yet this type of faux-inspirational tale has been appearing more lately, both in corporate advertising and in the news. Fiverr, an online freelance marketplace that promotes itself as being for “the lean entrepreneur”—as its name suggests, services advertised on Fiverr can be purchased for as low as five dollars—recently attracted ire for an ad campaign called “In Doers We Trust.” One ad, prominently displayed on some New York City subway cars, features a woman staring at the camera with a look of blank determination. “You eat a coffee for lunch,” the ad proclaims. “You follow through on your follow through. Sleep deprivation is your drug of choice. You might be a doer.”
[...] At the root of this is the American obsession with self-reliance, which makes it more acceptable to applaud an individual for working himself to death than to argue that an individual working himself to death is evidence of a flawed economic system. The contrast between the gig economy’s rhetoric (everyone is always connecting, having fun, and killing it!) and the conditions that allow it to exist (a lack of dependable employment that pays a living wage) makes this kink in our thinking especially clear. Human-interest stories about the beauty of some person standing up to the punishments of late capitalism are regular features in the news, too. I’ve come to detest the local-news set piece about the man who walks ten or eleven or twelve miles to work—a story that’s been filed from Oxford, Alabama; from Detroit, Michigan; from Plano, Texas. The story is always written as a tearjerker, with praise for the person’s uncomplaining attitude; a car is usually donated to the subject in the end. Never mentioned or even implied is the shamefulness of a job that doesn’t permit a worker to afford his own commute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @03:45PM (15 children)
And this is why no one in their right mind would work for you. Only naive and desperate people... How long have you retained the same employee before? Your self serving "logic" is extremely naive.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 24 2017, @04:03PM (14 children)
I'm in fact an extremely easy person to work for if you are of any value at all to society. If you are valuable to me, you're paid and treated like it. If I can replace you with an untrained teenager for the same day for the same pay, you're also paid and treated like it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @04:39PM (12 children)
No, you're a delusional crazy person that has no clue what's going on.
You can't just work harder to get a better job. In the past that largely worked because the wealth was more evenly distributed, but with 10% of the population having more than the total had by the lowest 90%, you're not reasonably work through that consistently.
We have a system which resembles the one in the former USSR where the link between effective work and compensation has broken to the point where only great fools and the rich would claim otherwise. There's just not the money left over after the kleptocrats get their cut to pay for performance
Some people manage to succeed, but there's a huge degree of luck involved and the hardest workers are invariably working for minimum wage.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday March 24 2017, @05:17PM (10 children)
No, you are trying to rationalize why you are a failure. Only 2.9% of American jobs pay minimum wage, including those that include tip income. If you goal is to merely be a worker bee then yes, you depend on the wealth of others and your labor is a mere commodity increasingly being forced to compete in a globalized market that is driving the price down as the supply rises.
The winning move is to -create- wealth, the opportunity to do that is nearly limitless. When you create new wealth it starts with you and you distribute it into the economy in ways you hope will increase it even more. The cycle repeats, everybody wins. An example to illustrate the concept. Everyone uses IP[1] as an example so instead open a restaurant and work your ass off to make it popular. That popularity is called 'goodwill' and it gets listed on the balance sheet, you can go to the bank and borrow against it. It is a real thing, it is wealth that didn't exist until your Will moved upon the Economy and made it so.
[1] Yes, I will do penance to St. IGNUcius later.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday March 24 2017, @06:40PM (9 children)
More self-serving delusion. It is like you pay zero attention to the real world. There is no infinite well of wealth for people to pull money from. To use your restaurant example: sure you can make a successful restaurant, but in any given area only so many restaurants will be supported and many go under through no fault of their own. They make good food, they have a reasonable location, they put out advertising, but in the end they just don't quite get enough customers. The same goes for every other business, there is no way I can break into the telecom industry no matter how hard I work. Unless I get lucky and some billionaire wants to give me a massive loan then there is no way it'll happen. And please don't whine about government regulation being the problem, the initial capital is still a barrier to anyone who isn't independently wealthy.
The only way to make your version of reality true is to abolish large corporations and change the tax rates so that after some decently large amount of money the rest of your increases in earnings only net you 5-10% and the rest go to taxes. But taxes are theft right? I presume you have a problem with the top couple % of rich people paying exorbitant amounts of tax... This solution would give small businesses the market share to compete and thrive, and it would prevent wealth hoarding which inevitably results in "money making money" which would put us right back to where we are now.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:19AM (8 children)
Yes, most entrepreneurs fail multiple times. Then when they succeed spiteful weasels covet their profits and call them awful names instead of being inspired to emulate them. This is unfair but they are driving a Ferrari and have a trophy wife in the passenger seat so it is all good. This doesn't change the fact that wealth is in fact created all the time. Go look at the NASDAQ; how many of those businesses were invented from nothing but an idea. Tech companies tend to be built by a few fresh faced guys right outta school who convince a VC they have the next Big Idea. All of that wealth, all of those productive employees beavering away making things that didn't even exist as a dream fifty years ago... hell ten years ago in a lot of cases. In America you can get rich curing diseases, how f*cking cool is that? Feel good about curing a horrible disease AND stack cash. All that wealth pulled right out of thin air. Don't you wish you were capable of that? Guess what, the odds are against you pulling a billion dollar company outta yer butt. Yup, that is true. America only promises you the Right to pursue happiness; you have to catch it on your own. Maybe your idea only make a business big enough for just you, isn't that still Winning?
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday March 25 2017, @06:50PM (7 children)
Blech, your posts are like literary garbage, they just make me feel nauseous. You don't care about the problems, you only care about using narrow anecdotes that don't cover the breadth of a problem to somehow "prove" your point. I wonder why no one has ever just tried to stop being poor??? /s
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 25 2017, @10:26PM (6 children)
You miss the direction of the arrow of causality. Poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Being a poor person is why they don't have money. Because they won't save, won't plan for the future, generally have poor impulse control, are prone to addictive habits and other self destructive behavior, etc. All these things lead to a lifestyle where accumulation of wealth isn't likely.. Even if they win the lottery most end up right back in poverty a decade later.
You want to solve poverty, at least realize what the actual problem is and work on that. It has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth, that is an effect, not a cause. That means it is literally impossible for any effort in that direction to have the slightest chance of success. You might, and almost certainly will, cause a lot of new problems but you can't actually achieve the stated goal. While daunting, the actual problem is a real problem in need of solving so please give it your best shot.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday March 25 2017, @11:18PM (5 children)
Thank you for promoting stereotypes that make bigoted people think their prejudice is justified. History shows you to be wrong, factual data from multiple successful and (according to your types) socialist societies shows you are wrong. You promote the worst policies.
Now, personal responsibility is important. People should learn to look out for themselves and we shouldn't coddle them. However, that is not the point of all this. Worker's rights is the issue, not welfare for someone who refuses to work. Stop conflating the issues and working to make our society WORSE!
It has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth, that is an effect, not a cause
You are just so very wrong. All the radio talk show bullshit, all the propaganda promoting class warfare, it is ALL WRONG! But you're too thick headed and filled with prejudiced emotionally reactive bullshit to realize. You mix rational thinking with emotional belief and somehow think you're just being rational. You're blind, and as I've said before the only reason to reply to your bullshit is to make sure some random reader knows there is more to the story.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday March 26 2017, @12:25AM (1 child)
actual data from multiple successful and (according to your types) socialist societies
As usual, I attack the premise. Show us one of these "successful" socialist societies you claim to have multiple examples of. Then we can talk about what example it might offer. All I see in Europe are dead and dying countries who have lost the will to live and are inviting in their replacements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:57AM
All I see in Europe are dead and dying countries
This sounds strangely like Kanye West, when he said: "I see white people, and they don't even know their white!" jmorris, you are such a Nazi! I suggest you look into Mishima Yukio. He reported that traditional Chinese doctors used to be able to distinguish male from female by the pulse alone, but in modern times, men's pulse has become just like that of a woman. Oh, the huge manatee! Maybe the only solution it to do it the Mishima way: Take over a national guard headquarters, call for them to join you in your wet-dream right-wing nut-job rebolution, and when they laugh you into submission (Baka!!!), go cut your guts out. It is the only way to be sure. But get a better tomodachi than Mishima did.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:34AM (2 children)
You are just so very wrong. All the radio talk show bullshit, all the propaganda promoting class warfare, it is ALL WRONG! But you're too thick headed and filled with prejudiced emotionally reactive bullshit to realize. You mix rational thinking with emotional belief and somehow think you're just being rational. You're blind, and as I've said before the only reason to reply to your bullshit is to make sure some random reader knows there is more to the story.
Then present these facts. Don't merely state they exist. I suspect we'll find that your socialist countries are doing so well because they're actually capitalist countries which can afford at least for a time the socialism that they have.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:17PM (1 child)
Real success is a mix of both, socialize the services that are necessary for basic success in a society. We already do that in the US, except the paperwork and hoops people have to jump through is detrimental and actually leads to people being stuck in those systems. It is INSANE to me that a single mother basically has to stay on welfare since getting a job to fit around her schedule is financially a worse decision. That is a fundamental disconnect.
As usual you go black/white with the topic and try to twist it to your own worldview. It is a very irritating tactic, and it is obviously garbage as you know full well the countries I'm talking about. You just seize every opportunity to cast doubt on things you don't like.
I suspect we'll find that your socialist countries are doing so well because they're actually capitalist countries which can afford at least for a time the socialism that they have.
Got any facts to back up your claim? No? Hahahahahah hypocrite. Oh wait, you said "I suspect" which of course means you need no proof! Alt-facts at work, you're learning quickly Darth Stupidous. I would usually refrain from adding insults, but I'm fucking tired of dealing with your bullshit arguments just because you don't like reality contradicting you.
The facts are in, supporting your population's basic needs means they can safely and securely pursue careers and become contributing members of society. The myth that everyone would sit on their ass watching TV all day is just that, a myth! Most people want to be useful, do something that matters or engage in society. I'm all for catching fraudsters, and eliminating the health insurance industry would free up a large number of people skilled in catching fraud so we can nail such assholes.
Long story short, we are focusing a huge amount of human activity on wasteful / inefficient / counter productive activities which make a small segment of the population rich. The share of the pie needs to swing back towards the majority of the population.
Not that we can't have rich people, but we can't have the same scale of rich people we do now. Capitalism + Socialism is the successful recipe and what we have now. The US just does it so poorly and inefficiently because of so many angry conservatives that don't understand much beyond "they took money out of MY paycheck!!" The irony there being that so much of their money goes to military activities which they 100% support. War and death? No problem. Improving society? No thanks.
* In case you're wondering I did look into reporting those people for fraud, but the required proof is something I don't have.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:44AM
Real success is a mix of both, socialize the services that are necessary for basic success in a society. We already do that in the US, except the paperwork and hoops people have to jump through is detrimental and actually leads to people being stuck in those systems. It is INSANE to me that a single mother basically has to stay on welfare since getting a job to fit around her schedule is financially a worse decision. That is a fundamental disconnect.
This is typical tragedy of the commons stuff. There has to be a cost or obstruction somewhere to keep people from loading up on free stuff. The federal government comes up with some public good, the "socialized service". People abuse the hell out of it. They then generate rules to prevent those abuses. People find new ways to abuse the hell out of the service. The bureaucrats come up with even more rules - lather, rinse, repeat. The insanity you see is a natural work in progress.
As usual you go black/white with the topic and try to twist it to your own worldview. It is a very irritating tactic, and it is obviously garbage as you know full well the countries I'm talking about. You just seize every opportunity to cast doubt on things you don't like.
Do I need to quote again your comment where you tell jmorris he is completely wrong? That's quite black and white.
And I see once again that you fail to provide evidence for your assertion. Sure, I probably have guessed right the stereotypes you would present as evidence, should you ever do so, just as I know my rebuttals once you give these examples. But I won't put work into this, when you won't.
Long story short, we are focusing a huge amount of human activity on wasteful / inefficient / counter productive activities which make a small segment of the population rich. The share of the pie needs to swing back towards the majority of the population.
And needless to say, I have ideas for fixes, should you ever become interested.
Not that we can't have rich people, but we can't have the same scale of rich people we do now. Capitalism + Socialism is the successful recipe and what we have now. The US just does it so poorly and inefficiently because of so many angry conservatives that don't understand much beyond "they took money out of MY paycheck!!" The irony there being that so much of their money goes to military activities which they 100% support. War and death? No problem. Improving society? No thanks.
Once again, without a scrap of evidence to support your assertion. Glancing at the current list [forbes.com] of richest people in the world, I see Bill Gates tops the list. What again is the adequate compensation level for creating tens of millions of man-years of high paying work, a company worth half a trillion dollars, and some of the most widely used software on the planet for the past three decades? $86 billion seems reasonable cumulative compensation for around three decades of doing that.
My view on this is that wealth inequality is a complete scam. I don't see even the slightest reason to care that the vast majority of humanity who neither has tried to build a business nor accumulate significant wealth is not as wealthy as someone who has created a half trillion dollar company from scratch.
Real world poverty, the metric that we should actually care about, has been improving world-wide since about 1950 when the world was still recovering from the Second World War and the end of the Chinese Civil War. We've since seen a huge move towards capitalism globally (and the related phenomenon of globalism, international trade and such) particularly with the end of Communism as the ideology for a bloc of over a billion people.
An industry has sprung up over the past century to address poverty and similar social ills. But those ills have steadily improved since. Like a fire fighter turned arsonist, when they ran out of natural problems to address, they made new problems to replace those.
I'll note here that Zimbabwe has, once you get outside of the corrupt center circle draining wealth from the country, done a marvelous job of reducing wealth inequality. Everyone (again aside from said center circle) happens to be much poorer as a result, but that's what you want, right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:21PM
You can't just work harder to get a better job. In the past that largely worked because the wealth was more evenly distributed, but with 10% of the population having more than the total had by the lowest 90%, you're not reasonably work through that consistently.
That is a non sequitur. Wealth inequality doesn't mean anything in this context. We might be able to work harder to get a better job or we might not. You can't tell from the irrelevant information you gave. It's also worth noting here that in most societies there will always be wealth inequality. So you can always make this argument - just insert different numbers into the argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:24PM
So you're a psychopath and you expect us to be ok with it.
Do you have a tumblr yet?