Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday August 03 2014, @04:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the moderation-in-all-things,-including-moderation dept.

An interesting writeup on Harvard Business Publishing blog by Michael Harris, discusses what most of us have already known, but each of us have colleagues (or worse, bosses) who still don't get it:

"In early April a series of reports appeared online in the United States and the United Kingdom lamenting the "lazy French." A new labor law in France had apparently banned organizations from e-mailing their employees after 6 p.m. In fact, it turned out to be more a case of "lazy journalists" than "lazy French": as The Economist explained, the "law" was not a law at all but a labor agreement aimed at improving health among a specific group of professionals, and there wasn't even a hard curfew for digital communication.

Like all myths, however, this one revealed a set of abiding values subscribed to by the folk who perpetuated it. Brits and Americans have long suspected that the French (and others) are goofing off while they the good corporate soldiers continue to toil away. They're proud about it too. A Gallup poll, released in May, found that most U.S. workers see their constant connection with officemates as a positive. In the age of the smartphone, there's no such thing as "downtime," and we profess to be happier and more productive for it.

Are we, though? After reviewing thousands of books, articles and papers on the topic and interviewing dozens of experts in fields from neurobiology and psychology to education and literature, I don't think so. When we accept this new and permanent ambient workload checking business news in bed or responding to coworkers' emails during breakfast we may believe that we are dedicated, tireless workers. But, actually, we're mostly just getting the small, easy things done. Being busy does not equate to being effective."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday August 03 2014, @12:25PM

    by VLM (445) on Sunday August 03 2014, @12:25PM (#76883)

    Yet I can make an argument the other direction.

    Lets say we replace all our IQ 120 tool and die makers (because all their jobs went to China) with IQ 80 burger flippers.

    The average income has imploded, average employed IQ has dropped about 40 points...

    IQ 80 class guys can always get an IQ 80 class job, like flipping burgers or security theater. The problem is, what is an IQ 120 guy supposed to do if all the IQ 120 jobs have gone to China / India? Or even just IQ 100 average good ole boys?

    This is pretty much the scenario where I live today. There's programming work for maybe the top 25% of people who can code (obviously I don't live in NYC or SV where its more like 150%). I'm doing pretty well financially, a modest integer multiple of the average income. What does everyone below my level do? Well, there's McDonalds and Walmart class of jobs and that's about it. Its been a long time since I made less than $30/hr but there is this dead gap between about $10/hr and lets say $30/hr where there are just no jobs remaining, at all.

    The unionized skilled tradesmen can make $30/hr but the entire population of everyone between IQ 90 and 110 can't become an electrician or plumber. There's always .mil but maybe only 10% of the population qualifies WRT age, physique, criminal record, education credentials and the demand for even the worlds biggest .mil is only about 1% of the population, so most people who would make great .mil soldiers won't be able to get a slot. Same problem with resource extraction jobs, where 0.1% of the population can get a $100K job in the oil fields.

    I guess what I'm getting at is if you're familiar with the concept of a bell curve for IQ, you can think of that as a supply graph and then there exists a demand graph for what employers want, and that looks like the same graph other than the deletion of everything between 90 and perhaps 130.

    Average to smart guys are probably more screwed economically than the IQ 80 crowd.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5