Overworked? Good habits, not holidays, are the answer(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
Overworked? Good habits, not holidays, are the answer
http://theconversation.com/overworked-good-habits-not-holidays-are-the-answer-17744
191 comments
Imagine if all the 10x and 100x engineers were all on the same team.
Keep competition, but play for the same team. The losers are losers because they didn't create the best solution, but the losers are winners because they get to enjoy the spoils, since they're on the same team. Isn't status everything, after a point? Why can't the United States actually be united?
Develop universal human code, highly vetted, secure, and performant code; employable by everyone to satisfy the tedious data management and automation of everyday needs that arise as a consequence of our biology and community structure, like health care, administration, maker technology, infrastructure, education, and the creation of art. The amount of mediocre code getting created, and relied upon, is atrocious, and often the highest quality, most valuable software is completely inaccessible except for by some very small subset of the global population! It's some kind of collective insanity.
> bad actors have gobbled up the spoils of the huge gains in productivity in the last 50 years.
I would say the worst of the present are written deeply into the structure of our societies, iterative processes spanning a very, very long time. These non-friendly, non-cooperative entities are very self-protective. It is only recently that it has been able to reap such unimaginable power.
How much harder does it become to create a better form of government, the longer this goes on? Our existing governments clearly can't handle current problems in any kind of respectable schedule, much less the ones that will result from the increasing acceleration of technological change. Perhaps whatever comes after human is already here, and it's eating us.
Keep competition, but play for the same team. The losers are losers because they didn't create the best solution, but the losers are winners because they get to enjoy the spoils, since they're on the same team. Isn't status everything, after a point? Why can't the United States actually be united?
Develop universal human code, highly vetted, secure, and performant code; employable by everyone to satisfy the tedious data management and automation of everyday needs that arise as a consequence of our biology and community structure, like health care, administration, maker technology, infrastructure, education, and the creation of art. The amount of mediocre code getting created, and relied upon, is atrocious, and often the highest quality, most valuable software is completely inaccessible except for by some very small subset of the global population! It's some kind of collective insanity.
> bad actors have gobbled up the spoils of the huge gains in productivity in the last 50 years.
I would say the worst of the present are written deeply into the structure of our societies, iterative processes spanning a very, very long time. These non-friendly, non-cooperative entities are very self-protective. It is only recently that it has been able to reap such unimaginable power.
How much harder does it become to create a better form of government, the longer this goes on? Our existing governments clearly can't handle current problems in any kind of respectable schedule, much less the ones that will result from the increasing acceleration of technological change. Perhaps whatever comes after human is already here, and it's eating us.
> Imagine if all the 10x and 100x engineers were all on the same team.
Yes, and imagine they were doing fundamental physics or medicine, instead of social media apps...
Yes, and imagine they were doing fundamental physics or medicine, instead of social media apps...
Imagine if we lived in a world which valued these things over the accrual of money.
I would guess that a majority of the people who create the technology that enables the latter would greatly prefer the former.
I would guess that a majority of the people who create the technology that enables the latter would greatly prefer the former.
[deleted]
I'm not sure but I think part of the problem that you're describing may be "Baumol's cost disease" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease
I think you've just described a modern version of the socialist utopia from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_from_Nowhere
What an interesting and revolutionary idea! That could actually change the world.
We do not live in a post-scarcity world, and to say that we do shows a failure to understand the economic concept of scarcity.
If goods aren't scarce, they have no opportunity cost -- anyone in such a society could get as much, e.g., filet mignon as they want without sacrificing their ability to get quality healthcare, education, or consumer electronics.
Greater overall and per capita productivity isn't, and doesn't even approximate, post-scarcity conditions.
If we lived in a post-scarcity economy, "You Need A Budget" would fail, because you wouldn't.
If goods aren't scarce, they have no opportunity cost -- anyone in such a society could get as much, e.g., filet mignon as they want without sacrificing their ability to get quality healthcare, education, or consumer electronics.
Greater overall and per capita productivity isn't, and doesn't even approximate, post-scarcity conditions.
If we lived in a post-scarcity economy, "You Need A Budget" would fail, because you wouldn't.
I don't quite follow this.
I'm inclined to believe we are experiencing scarcity. Sure, I can buy just about anything I desire and can afford. Any food item, cheap clothing, cheap travel. But I think that's an illusion.
Let's say I'm prepared to pay £50-£100 for an item of clothing. Shoes, jacket, whatever. It's likely to be made by impoverished people on the other side of the world who are paid peanuts.
I could even pay £5 for a pair of jeans if I wanted. God knows how that's even possible.
But it's a sliding tile puzzle. If I experience cheap apparently-plentiful goods, it's only because someone else is suffering.
I'm not prepared to pay £300 for a long-lasting item of clothing. The thought barely crosses my mind because I never see that stuff in the windows of high-street shops. Instead, I typically buy "cheap", "plentiful" goods that fall apart after a year or two -- or go out of fashion -- then replace them.
Ethically I dislike this, and try to shop "ethically" and donate old clothing to charity. This requires high levels of vigilance, and is not convenient.
All the above apply to food. I can buy apparently any item I want. Or can I? In actuality, I can buy whatever trendy item the supermarkets can buy in bulk for best profit. Great, I'll have some kale and coconut water and acai berries. Is that "plenty"? What about locally produced fruit and veg? Why do I have to invest in a comparatively-expensive box delivery scheme if I want apples that were grown in my country?
If I want to eat locally reared meat I have to pay a premium, because provenance has become a valuable attribute. Instead I could buy mechanically recovered pressed meat, which is unbelievably cheap and widely available. Even if I believe it's healthy to eat that stuff, and even though both products are undeniably "meat", they're not the same.
Perhaps meat being expensive is actually normal. That's certainly been the case for most of history. In which case, the cheapness of the lower quality meat products is the illusory factor.
So I think "plenty" is an illusion, and scarcity is far, far closer than we conspire to believe.
Edit: I forgot the most obvious and familiar example. Ad-funded content/services vs paid-for content/services.
I'm inclined to believe we are experiencing scarcity. Sure, I can buy just about anything I desire and can afford. Any food item, cheap clothing, cheap travel. But I think that's an illusion.
Let's say I'm prepared to pay £50-£100 for an item of clothing. Shoes, jacket, whatever. It's likely to be made by impoverished people on the other side of the world who are paid peanuts.
I could even pay £5 for a pair of jeans if I wanted. God knows how that's even possible.
But it's a sliding tile puzzle. If I experience cheap apparently-plentiful goods, it's only because someone else is suffering.
I'm not prepared to pay £300 for a long-lasting item of clothing. The thought barely crosses my mind because I never see that stuff in the windows of high-street shops. Instead, I typically buy "cheap", "plentiful" goods that fall apart after a year or two -- or go out of fashion -- then replace them.
Ethically I dislike this, and try to shop "ethically" and donate old clothing to charity. This requires high levels of vigilance, and is not convenient.
All the above apply to food. I can buy apparently any item I want. Or can I? In actuality, I can buy whatever trendy item the supermarkets can buy in bulk for best profit. Great, I'll have some kale and coconut water and acai berries. Is that "plenty"? What about locally produced fruit and veg? Why do I have to invest in a comparatively-expensive box delivery scheme if I want apples that were grown in my country?
If I want to eat locally reared meat I have to pay a premium, because provenance has become a valuable attribute. Instead I could buy mechanically recovered pressed meat, which is unbelievably cheap and widely available. Even if I believe it's healthy to eat that stuff, and even though both products are undeniably "meat", they're not the same.
Perhaps meat being expensive is actually normal. That's certainly been the case for most of history. In which case, the cheapness of the lower quality meat products is the illusory factor.
So I think "plenty" is an illusion, and scarcity is far, far closer than we conspire to believe.
Edit: I forgot the most obvious and familiar example. Ad-funded content/services vs paid-for content/services.
You say were experiencing scarcity then you start listing off luxuries! A mechanically constructed, mechanically harvested cotton blanket and mechanically harvested diet of beans and potatoes sounds more feasible. Maybe even too basic.
An efficient entry-level post-scarcity world is not going to overproduce pairs of jeans or transport coconut water across the world. That world would make just enough clothing to cover the populace and provide a cup of water on request. That world would want to stay just above scarcity, no want to waste, no need to introduce artificial market driven scarcities.
An efficient entry-level post-scarcity world is not going to overproduce pairs of jeans or transport coconut water across the world. That world would make just enough clothing to cover the populace and provide a cup of water on request. That world would want to stay just above scarcity, no want to waste, no need to introduce artificial market driven scarcities.
> You say were experiencing scarcity then you start listing off luxuries!
Yup, I'm pointing out that my well-shod, well-fed, well-clothed society is an illusion, and that scarcity is just under the surface.
> An efficient entry-level post-scarcity world is not going to overproduce pairs of jeans
I don't disagree.
Yup, I'm pointing out that my well-shod, well-fed, well-clothed society is an illusion, and that scarcity is just under the surface.
> An efficient entry-level post-scarcity world is not going to overproduce pairs of jeans
I don't disagree.
While pretty hideous sweashops do exist, there is still good chance that the person who sowed your jeans chose to do it. Because the alternative was even worse.
And to what extent are we responsible for those alternatives? How much are the companies we patronize invested in making sure their employees have no choice?
Well given that large parts of south Asia and Africa are still medieval poor, I'm not going to assume much responsibility. You don't need to beat people into desperation in many places of the world.
My great-great-great-great-great grandfather might have had something to do with colonialism. But if we start judging sons by their fathers, we get nowhere. And at the same time people remain poor in Africa.
Buying only domestic goods would help to ensure that they remain poor.
The one instance that really has incentive to keep people poor are the foreign development organizations. They don't need people "poor enough to be willing to work" they need people "starving, so we get good footage".
My great-great-great-great-great grandfather might have had something to do with colonialism. But if we start judging sons by their fathers, we get nowhere. And at the same time people remain poor in Africa.
Buying only domestic goods would help to ensure that they remain poor.
The one instance that really has incentive to keep people poor are the foreign development organizations. They don't need people "poor enough to be willing to work" they need people "starving, so we get good footage".
We're close to post industrial, at least in the 1st world.
We're close.
We certainly don't need to live in a world where millions die for lack of will, or failing that, where trillions of dollars of value are siphoned off of the working class in an upwards waterfall.
We're close.
We certainly don't need to live in a world where millions die for lack of will, or failing that, where trillions of dollars of value are siphoned off of the working class in an upwards waterfall.
Post-industrial is here, or near, in much of the developed world, sure, but that just means that the economy has shifted from producing tangible goods to services and intangible goods, and importing tangible goods from elsewhere. That's just a shift in comparative advantage in an economy with scarcity, not a shift to or toward post-scarcity.
I would say that the part of post-scarcity that's actually cogent to my orginal comment is that we are already, via largely and increasingly automated means, cheaply producing vast quantities of consumer goods with decreasing amounts of human intervention.
I didn't mean to credulously insinuate that we are approaching the utopian ideal of a post-scarcity world, as any cursory glance at reality would readily indicate that we are not living in a utopia. But my comment was lazy as it says exactly that, without further qualification, so i deserve the pedantry.
I didn't mean to credulously insinuate that we are approaching the utopian ideal of a post-scarcity world, as any cursory glance at reality would readily indicate that we are not living in a utopia. But my comment was lazy as it says exactly that, without further qualification, so i deserve the pedantry.
Thats not post-scarcity, just high productivity relative to the past. Which is something people could point to as being true relative to the (comparative) past at many points in history (conservatively, pretty much most since he agricultural revolutions of the middle ages in the West.)
Because misery is empirically shown to be driven largely by relative, not absolute, deprivation -- both compared to one's own past and one's visible surroundings -- greater productively doesn't even approximate post-scarcity (indeed when it was involves greater or more visible inequality, it makes the impact of scarcity more palpable.)
Because misery is empirically shown to be driven largely by relative, not absolute, deprivation -- both compared to one's own past and one's visible surroundings -- greater productively doesn't even approximate post-scarcity (indeed when it was involves greater or more visible inequality, it makes the impact of scarcity more palpable.)
>Post-scarcity is a theoretical economy in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
As to how relatively miserable we are as a function of how miserable we were... I'm really much more concerned with the idea that as a socioeconomic entity, the global economy generates enough capital that we could solve hunger, base poverty, eradicate solved diseases and even wage slavery. Today. That we haven't and won't is all the indictment I require.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
As to how relatively miserable we are as a function of how miserable we were... I'm really much more concerned with the idea that as a socioeconomic entity, the global economy generates enough capital that we could solve hunger, base poverty, eradicate solved diseases and even wage slavery. Today. That we haven't and won't is all the indictment I require.
[deleted]
The cancer has befallen the whole planet. Everything will be made to money. The whole world is becoming one big machine.
We're seeing the rise of humanity's vile offspring (to borrow from Accelerando)... ethereal ideas birthed from greed and made corporeal by law, financial machines beyond the power or comprehension of individuals.
At this point, I'm honestly not sure if this thread is a series of extremely pessimistic people, or a fairly clever riff on Lovecraftian doom writing.
What part of it isn't true though? Don't look at how it reads, just read the words.
I feel the same way, like you're being stomped in the face every day by an invisible boot except nobody knows who's wearing it, but we all feel it.
We are collectively losing our identities and blending into one due to how hyper connected we are and how available cheap forms of entertainment are.
It's all quite eerie. I still haven't really found a way to articulate it but I'd love to chat with someone more in depth about it.
I feel the same way, like you're being stomped in the face every day by an invisible boot except nobody knows who's wearing it, but we all feel it.
We are collectively losing our identities and blending into one due to how hyper connected we are and how available cheap forms of entertainment are.
It's all quite eerie. I still haven't really found a way to articulate it but I'd love to chat with someone more in depth about it.
Earlier someone said that they want to opt out of the whole thing. Although I'm not you and I can't know precisely what you are feeling, I'm going to make an educated guess that this is the key to your freedom.
This invisible boot is an illusion. I once read an article on privilege. The idea is that if you were a slave owner, you could "promote" some of your slaves to be "head slaves". This privilege creates a kind of vacuum. Instead of wanting to be free, slaves compete to become "head slave". If you randomly promote some every once in a while, it erases the idea that slaves should want to be free.
Even without some tinfoil hat inspired cabal, you can probably imagine how we have managed to enslave ourselves. If you make or have a lot of money, you can use it for privilege. People compete for this privilege instead of considering if they would rather be free. A small proportion of people become rich -- through hard work, or luck (it doesn't actually matter), keeping the system going.
I don't recommend quitting society altogether :-) You don't need to indulge in some self-sufficiency, neck beard fantasy, but I recommend making something entirely from scratch. See if you can borrow some land for a season and grow a garden, or make beer, or sew something... whatever. The closer to scratch you can do it, the better, but don't stress about it. Then, once you have something nice, wander over to your neighbours and give it to them. Keep doing that. It helps to get good at only one thing so that you don't get overwhelmed.
Next, look at how much money you spend. Try to challenge yourself to see how little money you could spend and still be happy. We're trying to break the weird "obvious" rules that everybody else lives by, so try not to accumulate too much money. The more you can shrink the amount you need, the easier it will be to be happy with the amount that you have.
At the same time, stop reading the newspaper and watching TV news programs. Instead, challenge yourself to think about, "What is actually important to me. Do I care that North Korea is creating missiles. Even if I do, is there anything I want to do about it?". Keep trying to shrink the amount of useless drama in your life. Find ways to be alerted to the things that you care about and that you want to act on. It's best that the number of those kinds of things are very small because otherwise you will wear yourself out. Try your best to actually do something positive about those very small number of things.
After that, I think you will find that you are no longer being stomped in the face every day. At worst, some clueless people are tripping over you every once in a while. It hurts sometimes, but it's not something that has to trouble you too much. Yes, you have to pay taxes and yes, evil people are spending that tax money on things you don't like. But, unless this is the one thing that you want to fix in your life, it's just useless drama. Give them the damn money -- you don't need it anyway. Yes, you have to obey laws, even the ones you don't agree with. Fight the bad ones that you need to fight and save your strength wrt to ones you don't need to fight. Yes, there are jerks everywhere you look -- even your neighbours. But the more you get to know your neighbours, the easier it will be to create a mini society where everyone is reasonably friendly and occasionally people drop by to give you home made jam.
In other words, just step off the escalator to weird-ville. It doesn't have to be eerie.
This invisible boot is an illusion. I once read an article on privilege. The idea is that if you were a slave owner, you could "promote" some of your slaves to be "head slaves". This privilege creates a kind of vacuum. Instead of wanting to be free, slaves compete to become "head slave". If you randomly promote some every once in a while, it erases the idea that slaves should want to be free.
Even without some tinfoil hat inspired cabal, you can probably imagine how we have managed to enslave ourselves. If you make or have a lot of money, you can use it for privilege. People compete for this privilege instead of considering if they would rather be free. A small proportion of people become rich -- through hard work, or luck (it doesn't actually matter), keeping the system going.
I don't recommend quitting society altogether :-) You don't need to indulge in some self-sufficiency, neck beard fantasy, but I recommend making something entirely from scratch. See if you can borrow some land for a season and grow a garden, or make beer, or sew something... whatever. The closer to scratch you can do it, the better, but don't stress about it. Then, once you have something nice, wander over to your neighbours and give it to them. Keep doing that. It helps to get good at only one thing so that you don't get overwhelmed.
Next, look at how much money you spend. Try to challenge yourself to see how little money you could spend and still be happy. We're trying to break the weird "obvious" rules that everybody else lives by, so try not to accumulate too much money. The more you can shrink the amount you need, the easier it will be to be happy with the amount that you have.
At the same time, stop reading the newspaper and watching TV news programs. Instead, challenge yourself to think about, "What is actually important to me. Do I care that North Korea is creating missiles. Even if I do, is there anything I want to do about it?". Keep trying to shrink the amount of useless drama in your life. Find ways to be alerted to the things that you care about and that you want to act on. It's best that the number of those kinds of things are very small because otherwise you will wear yourself out. Try your best to actually do something positive about those very small number of things.
After that, I think you will find that you are no longer being stomped in the face every day. At worst, some clueless people are tripping over you every once in a while. It hurts sometimes, but it's not something that has to trouble you too much. Yes, you have to pay taxes and yes, evil people are spending that tax money on things you don't like. But, unless this is the one thing that you want to fix in your life, it's just useless drama. Give them the damn money -- you don't need it anyway. Yes, you have to obey laws, even the ones you don't agree with. Fight the bad ones that you need to fight and save your strength wrt to ones you don't need to fight. Yes, there are jerks everywhere you look -- even your neighbours. But the more you get to know your neighbours, the easier it will be to create a mini society where everyone is reasonably friendly and occasionally people drop by to give you home made jam.
In other words, just step off the escalator to weird-ville. It doesn't have to be eerie.
>After that, I think you will find that you are no longer being stomped in the face every day.
Yeah, all of that is all well and good, for you. What you wrote has no effect on me as I've already made the same realizations way way back. They weren't even conscious realizations worthy of merit. I've just always lived this way.
I don't care about anything in my life except my hobbies. Day job -> piano. I hang out with a couple of people a couple times a year.
Currently saving for a remote cottage way out north so I can isolate myself and work on my music. That's all I want to do.
And that's what I mean about the invisible boot. Just to have a modest dream like that here where I live, I need 250k minimum for the land+cottage and all things included in that.
Even the tiniest dreams are straight impossible. Owning any semblance of a property that is close to the downtown core if you're not a multi millionaire? Hahahahahaha good luck. 0% of my friends will be buying property in their life times, which means they will move further and further away.
The invisible boot is the stagnation of wages and the exploding cost of every day things, combined to shatter any and all dreams.
There's nothing to actually live for, and I don't mean folks like me who are in the unique position of being in a highly paid job without any "life strings". But my friends? It's over, working their entire lives just to maybe afford necessities for that month.
Yeah, all of that is all well and good, for you. What you wrote has no effect on me as I've already made the same realizations way way back. They weren't even conscious realizations worthy of merit. I've just always lived this way.
I don't care about anything in my life except my hobbies. Day job -> piano. I hang out with a couple of people a couple times a year.
Currently saving for a remote cottage way out north so I can isolate myself and work on my music. That's all I want to do.
And that's what I mean about the invisible boot. Just to have a modest dream like that here where I live, I need 250k minimum for the land+cottage and all things included in that.
Even the tiniest dreams are straight impossible. Owning any semblance of a property that is close to the downtown core if you're not a multi millionaire? Hahahahahaha good luck. 0% of my friends will be buying property in their life times, which means they will move further and further away.
The invisible boot is the stagnation of wages and the exploding cost of every day things, combined to shatter any and all dreams.
There's nothing to actually live for, and I don't mean folks like me who are in the unique position of being in a highly paid job without any "life strings". But my friends? It's over, working their entire lives just to maybe afford necessities for that month.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not sure what else to say besides that none of this rings true to me at all. I don't feel stomped in the face at all. I don't believe my identity is blending into one collective, and I wouldn't describe anyone I know in that way either; everyone seems unique and interesting after getting to know them at even a little depth.
Your experience of life must just be different than mine!
Your experience of life must just be different than mine!
People work a lot, are more productive than ever and, yet, the benefits of that are disproportionately funnelled to a tiny minority who owns the means of production. Most of the people consider this arrangement is moral, viable and sustainable and will defend it to their death.
Why would we be pessimistic?
Why would we be pessimistic?
And the only alternative seems to be to swich the guys who get the money funnel. Or some other guys who get the money funnel. Or some other guys...
Yup. Feeling pessimist now.
Yup. Feeling pessimist now.
Welcome to how I perceive most of the rest of everyone. What weird fear-drugs are they even on?
I have been on both sides of the fence.
I had continuous allergy problems without knowing it for a large part of my life. Among the effects were a minor depression.
When I got rid of the allergies I had a bit of an identity conflict, I wasn't the one I thought. My humour and world view weren't as dark, I liked people more. It is a strange to adjust your self image so much after 40.
I had continuous allergy problems without knowing it for a large part of my life. Among the effects were a minor depression.
When I got rid of the allergies I had a bit of an identity conflict, I wasn't the one I thought. My humour and world view weren't as dark, I liked people more. It is a strange to adjust your self image so much after 40.
I was getting a more cyberpunk vibe, but I like where you are going regardless.
We fear superhuman AI yet we don't realise we already are that hypothetical paperclip maximiser.
Reminds me of the quote from the game Deus Ex:
The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves. They needed a system, an industrial-age machine.
Without the use of computing machines our ancestors had to arrange themselves in crude structures that formalized decision-making.
Now are merely developing a decision-making system that does not involve organic beings.
The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves. They needed a system, an industrial-age machine.
Without the use of computing machines our ancestors had to arrange themselves in crude structures that formalized decision-making.
Now are merely developing a decision-making system that does not involve organic beings.
Damn, glass half empty much ?
A bank owns the glass. You just rent it.
what glass?
Wanna think of something scary? A post-work world with scarcity.
That's rapidly approaching (and, arguably, already here for a growing number of people.)
Yes, that's true. And appalling.
So, you took the red pill?
Just so you know, while it's a complete misappropriation of the reference, "the red pill" is a term associated with a particular group with strong opinions on gender politics: https://www.reddit.com/r/theredpill
Also can be appropriately used to describe a counter-cultural enlightenment of any variety. Red pill = painful truth, blue pill = comfortable falsehood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
In this context, I thought it was obvious that I was talking about this red pill.
In this context, I thought it was obvious that I was talking about this red pill.
>TRP... "strong opinions"
You spelled misogyny weird.
TRP is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
You spelled misogyny weird.
TRP is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
I tend to find TRP more pitiful than anything else.
[deleted]
Where do you live? Because if you live in the western world and in a country with a reasonable amount personal and financial freedom, you are out of your freaking mind.
I make 6 figures in the Western US.
I really hope you're talking about taxes. That's where half of my salary is going to, not to some mythical "evil rich", but to pay for beurocracy and welfare programs.
My taxes are inflated so rich can pay a lower percentage than I do or even just skim off the government. Beyond that, my Rent and healthcare costs are ridiculously inflated, but you can find a lot of padding in other areas.
FYI even just at the federal level things are effed up. 33.9% of taxes collected are payroll taxes, but social security caps at ~120k. Hint it's just a tax, you can receive benifits without ever working and millions on disability are simply pulled off welfare rolls.
FYI even just at the federal level things are effed up. 33.9% of taxes collected are payroll taxes, but social security caps at ~120k. Hint it's just a tax, you can receive benifits without ever working and millions on disability are simply pulled off welfare rolls.
Top 1% of income earners pay 50% of all federal income taxes collected.
What would you consider a "fair" share of the top 1%'s wealth?
What would you consider a "fair" share of the top 1%'s wealth?
Volume and proportion are not the same thing. 50% of net is very easy when you have >10% of all wealth. No super rich individuals are taxed at 50% either of their net income either (if they are they are doing their taxes themselves and their lawyer is a fool), it is more common for ultra high wealth individuals to pay less than 10% of their net earnings.
I see your point, but don't forget that almost 50% of Americans don't pay any federal tax at all.[1] In fact some of them get EITC, so they are getting free money from the government on top of keeping all of their salary.
So my question still stands, what would be a fair breakdown of tax burden? Top 1% pay 100% of all income taxes? 90%?
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm asking an honest question.
Unless we know what "fair" looks like, we don't know what needs to change.
[1]http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/07/in-2015-45-percent-of-amer...
So my question still stands, what would be a fair breakdown of tax burden? Top 1% pay 100% of all income taxes? 90%?
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm asking an honest question.
Unless we know what "fair" looks like, we don't know what needs to change.
[1]http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/07/in-2015-45-percent-of-amer...
I think asking what's "fair" is the wrong question. We should ask what is effective at creating the most utility. I believe the marginal utility of money is roughly logarithmic, and thus taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor creates a lot of utility. However, this must also be balanced with the economic incentives that (potential) inequality drives, which leads to a lot of utility creation.
The intuition I take out of this, is that letting people be billionaires is a complete waste of resources, because plenty of people would still aspire to wealth even if the richest person in the world had a fraction of that.
The intuition I take out of this, is that letting people be billionaires is a complete waste of resources, because plenty of people would still aspire to wealth even if the richest person in the world had a fraction of that.
Sales tax is still tax. While they don't personally hand the money to the government it is still coming out of their money. I am not qualified to talk about how the US tax system fits together but I assume that 50% is paying some form of land tax through local government fees that are passed on as an increase in rent. I would also assume they drink or smoke (pretty hefty taxes there too). Consider also that fees are pretty much tax by any other name (they are government revenue), there is a rather large fee to cancel US citizenship.
Asking the question what should the 'top 1%' pay is (in my opinion) the wrong question.
A better start (for me) is to ask what % of tax the people with the (for example) top 50% of income, or top 50% of wealth, should pay.
If the top 1% has (for example) 90% of the income, then only paying 50% of the tax might be considered unfair.
A better start (for me) is to ask what % of tax the people with the (for example) top 50% of income, or top 50% of wealth, should pay.
If the top 1% has (for example) 90% of the income, then only paying 50% of the tax might be considered unfair.
If the top 1% has (for example) 90% of the income, then only paying 50% of the tax might be considered unfair.
The only number I could find is that the top 1% earns 22% of all AGI (adjusted gross income). This is income after all deductions, etc; the amount of income the tax rate is applied to.[1]
I'd be interested to see how much of all income is earned by the top 1%.
[1]http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco...
The only number I could find is that the top 1% earns 22% of all AGI (adjusted gross income). This is income after all deductions, etc; the amount of income the tax rate is applied to.[1]
I'd be interested to see how much of all income is earned by the top 1%.
[1]http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco...
AGI is a lie.
EX: Calculate bill gates lifetime wealth and lifetime AGI. Hint, that 30 billion he donated never counted as AGI.
EX: Calculate bill gates lifetime wealth and lifetime AGI. Hint, that 30 billion he donated never counted as AGI.
AGI is not a lie, it's Adjusted Gross Income, that is the income you actually pay tax on.
It's not like it's some super secret formula that no one knows how to calculate.
It's not like it's some super secret formula that no one knows how to calculate.
Income is income, Adjustment is where the lie comes from.
Sure, you can pretend it's meaningful number, but ex: charitable donations are not deductible from payroll taxes so they are clearly not going to reduce income. Or for a more obvious example, donate 1 million in appreciated and you get to deduct the full 1 million from income. (see if you can spot the problem with that.)
PS: Hypothetically, if they said AGI was income - 95% of income over 10 million per year would you still use it? After all that's just an adjustment.
Sure, you can pretend it's meaningful number, but ex: charitable donations are not deductible from payroll taxes so they are clearly not going to reduce income. Or for a more obvious example, donate 1 million in appreciated and you get to deduct the full 1 million from income. (see if you can spot the problem with that.)
PS: Hypothetically, if they said AGI was income - 95% of income over 10 million per year would you still use it? After all that's just an adjustment.
I have no idea why you are calling it a lie. The AGI is clearly "adjusted" and the formula is public.
This might be more interesting...
In 2011, households in the top, middle, and bottom quintiles received 52, 14, and 5 percent of the nation's before-tax income, respectively; the shares of federal taxes paid by those households were 69, 9, and 1 percent.[1]
So the top quintile earns 52% of the before-tax income and payers 69% of all taxes. The bottom quintile earns 5% of all before-tax income and pays 1% of the taxes.
[1]https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440
This might be more interesting...
In 2011, households in the top, middle, and bottom quintiles received 52, 14, and 5 percent of the nation's before-tax income, respectively; the shares of federal taxes paid by those households were 69, 9, and 1 percent.[1]
So the top quintile earns 52% of the before-tax income and payers 69% of all taxes. The bottom quintile earns 5% of all before-tax income and pays 1% of the taxes.
[1]https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you exclude payroll taxes AND ALL OTHER TAXES. Then sure you can play with the numbers.
Reality is they are not paying 50% of income tax as social security is a federal tax on income. There are also plenty of regressive taxes. Pay for lunch that's taxed, pay for an accountant free. Guess who spends more on accountants?
Reality is they are not paying 50% of income tax as social security is a federal tax on income. There are also plenty of regressive taxes. Pay for lunch that's taxed, pay for an accountant free. Guess who spends more on accountants?
Why is Social Security a tax? It's a separately funded program that pays out based on what the person paid into it. It's also capped.
Just because you call a tax an insurance fund or a pogostick, does not mean it's somehow not a tax. Government collects money from X, and hands it out to Y that's a tax.
keep going until income distribution looks more like log(x)+3 instead of x^e
[deleted]
I'm not from US, please stop assuming it about HN readers already.
Also, the percentage of income as basis for tax doesn't make any sense. I don't pay a percentage of income for broadband or Netflix or insurance, why should payment for government services be different?
Also, the percentage of income as basis for tax doesn't make any sense. I don't pay a percentage of income for broadband or Netflix or insurance, why should payment for government services be different?
A decent analogy for most governments is that they behave similarly to an insurance company with an army. You absolutely pay a percentage of the value of what you are insuring (here your life, wealth, earning potential) not a flat fee.
Because taxes aren't a personal payment for government services for yourself. You're paying into a shared fund on a capacity basis so that _everyone_ can have access to those services.
I know a guy in a project that generates a few millions per employee. His share is less than 10% in salary. In this case the discrepancy is easy to see, but the same is true in many other places where it's not so obvious.
But we can see it in the big picture, statistically half the money in the country goes to the 0.01% or something along those lines. All the gains from productivity went to the super-rich.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for you to keep your eyes fixed on taxes and welfare when there is a lot more money at stake. But it makes a lot of sense for the super-rich to ensure that you keep doing it.
But we can see it in the big picture, statistically half the money in the country goes to the 0.01% or something along those lines. All the gains from productivity went to the super-rich.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for you to keep your eyes fixed on taxes and welfare when there is a lot more money at stake. But it makes a lot of sense for the super-rich to ensure that you keep doing it.
I believe that an employer should make a substantial margin on an employee's labor. That provides a stable situation, covers for the employer's risk (if an employee's project/work fails to create value, they still get paid), and covers the overhead.
If you want full value (which might be zero or negative at times) for your labor, you should start your own thing and keep 100% of the value you create.
If my employer wasn't making at least 3x (and ideally more like 5x) the total cost they were spending on me, I'd start worrying about the stability and longevity of that relationship. (So far, very happily employed there almost 13 years and no end in sight.)
If you want full value (which might be zero or negative at times) for your labor, you should start your own thing and keep 100% of the value you create.
If my employer wasn't making at least 3x (and ideally more like 5x) the total cost they were spending on me, I'd start worrying about the stability and longevity of that relationship. (So far, very happily employed there almost 13 years and no end in sight.)
> I believe that an employer should make a substantial margin on an employee's labor. That provides a stable situation, covers for the employer's risk (if an employee's project/work fails to create value, they still get paid), and covers the overhead.
A workers' cooperative can do the same job. What justifies the privatization of the cooperative's profits to a single individual?
A workers' cooperative can do the same job. What justifies the privatization of the cooperative's profits to a single individual?
> A workers' cooperative can do the same job
Then the workers should go ahead and form such a cooperative.
Then the workers should go ahead and form such a cooperative.
The profits go to the owner, whatever that is. The employees chose the company (and implicitly the ownership structure) when they began employment. It's not like citizenship where one is born into the situation and the contract is mythical; they had to sign one.
Do you not believe in the sanctity of property rights?
Do you not believe in the sanctity of property rights?
>Do you not believe in the sanctity of property rights?
Well of course not. Property is theft, and all that[1].
[1] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property%3F
Well of course not. Property is theft, and all that[1].
[1] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property%3F
Where in sokoloff's answer did they specify that the margin went to an individual? I interpret "employer" to mean the employing company, composed of many individuals who, like sokoloff, also want stability.
Ok. Why should the company be subject to nonworker ownership and exploitation?
I'll address the ownership angle as that's simple (at least in my mind): because someone (or several someones) put up the capital to start the business. They own it.
If they want to exchange some ownership for some cash, they can sell all or part of their ownership stake. If they want to exchange some ownership for labor or other services, they can create a stock or option grant program, typically with vesting. There doesn't seem to be anything unnatural to me about someone putting capital at risk to form a business owning the resulting business. No different than putting my capital at risk/committed to buy a house or a car. I pay for them and I own them.
If you want to avoid that situation that you find exploitive, you are free to start your own (individually or as a collective) and keep/share as you judge best.
If they want to exchange some ownership for some cash, they can sell all or part of their ownership stake. If they want to exchange some ownership for labor or other services, they can create a stock or option grant program, typically with vesting. There doesn't seem to be anything unnatural to me about someone putting capital at risk to form a business owning the resulting business. No different than putting my capital at risk/committed to buy a house or a car. I pay for them and I own them.
If you want to avoid that situation that you find exploitive, you are free to start your own (individually or as a collective) and keep/share as you judge best.
You could make a similar argument for taxes. The state provides a stable environment, covers risk, and handles overhead. Yet people (in some countries, at least) are significantly more accepting of corporations taking many times the value they are creating in profit versus the state taking a proportion of their earnings in taxes.
That's because their relationship with employer is voluntary.
Only up to a point; unless you are rich you are in effect required to take a job in most countries, and there is often not any choice available in employment. Compare that to the state where the relationship is not optional but you do get a vote in how it is run. Plus you potentially have the option of moving to another country.
You have a choice of many different employers and you have the choice to form your own venture (be it software development, business consulting, running a restaurant, doing landscaping, driving Uber, or even walking dogs and doing general errands).
I'm not aware of countries where your choice is "do this one specific job for this one specific employer or else starve".
I'm not aware of countries where your choice is "do this one specific job for this one specific employer or else starve".
You may in theory have a choice of employers but in practice you may not. I'm an experienced programmer and have a fairly wide choice of jobs I might take up but in the past I have literally had to take whatever job was available.
Starting your own venture may be possible but is dependent on aptitude, access to capital and the state of the economy (it's unlikely that we could all start our own businesses for example; the market wouldn't support it).
The recent rise in economic migrants suggest that it many cases it really is easier to switch countries than switch jobs in one's own country.
Starting your own venture may be possible but is dependent on aptitude, access to capital and the state of the economy (it's unlikely that we could all start our own businesses for example; the market wouldn't support it).
The recent rise in economic migrants suggest that it many cases it really is easier to switch countries than switch jobs in one's own country.
Same is true for vast majority of countries.
Spend some time tracking who gets what from the government, directly through tax subsidies, and indirectly from fed zirp policies, its total kleptocracry.
Special laws, ie you're now mandated to purchase healthcare, special barriers to entry, copyright give aways etc etc, the rich get super rich through government corruption.
Special laws, ie you're now mandated to purchase healthcare, special barriers to entry, copyright give aways etc etc, the rich get super rich through government corruption.
[deleted]
You see the part of your salary that goes to taxes; less visible is the share of the economic gain produced by your work that doesn't make it into your salary I the first place.
The GP was referencing the latter.
The GP was referencing the latter.
My salary is negotiated on open, highly effective market. Share of my work that goes to the company shareholders represents their investment. If the company fails, I don't risk anything, but they will lose the money they put into the company in the first place. Naturally, if the company succeeds, they have to get capital gains on that investment. The fact that I will be able to get any salary from this company at all will be a direct consequence of a risk that they took upon themselves, not me.
Why do you assume that an economic gain would automatically be added to someone's salary? Salary is based on supply and demand, not the value you create.
That's why an assembly worker building a $20K Ford makes about the same as one building a $100K SUV.
That's why an assembly worker building a $20K Ford makes about the same as one building a $100K SUV.
I'm pretty sure that what I said not only does not assume that economic gains would automatically be reflected in salary, but indeed that it's entire premise is that economic gains from work are often not, automatically or otherwise, reflected in salary but instead captured by capital.
Maybe you'd like to ask a sensible question?
Maybe you'd like to ask a sensible question?
Ford makes $776,348 per employee. I will take a stab in the dark and say that the assembly worker is making substantially less than that regardless of whether it is $20k or $100k car while still producing far more value than the cost of either vehicle.
http://csimarket.com/stocks/singleEfficiencyet.php?code=F
http://csimarket.com/stocks/singleEfficiencyet.php?code=F
As already mentioned, that is revenue, not profit. If you take $1000 worth of material (costs) and make something you can sell for $2000 (price), then you've created $1000 in value, not $2000.
My point is that the value created by a worker doesn't define the salary (although it creates a cap, you can pay more than value created).
A great example are lawyers. With the glut of lawyers out there, a lot of lawyers are getting paid less than $50K/yr. I would argue the work they do is worth more than that, but since there are so many lawyers chasing so many jobs, salaries fall.
My point is that the value created by a worker doesn't define the salary (although it creates a cap, you can pay more than value created).
A great example are lawyers. With the glut of lawyers out there, a lot of lawyers are getting paid less than $50K/yr. I would argue the work they do is worth more than that, but since there are so many lawyers chasing so many jobs, salaries fall.
> you can pay more than value created
"can't", presumably.
"can't", presumably.
That is revenue. Revenue per employee can be a useful measure, but usually it's better to look at net income since industries have varying levels of expenses. Ford's net income in 2015 was about $40,000 per employee. That's healthy, but low enough, when you consider that multiple employees and systems are involved in the design, production and sale of vehicles, that the less profitable vehicle lines need to be cost controlled to stay in production.
I don't know about your situation for most people the salary increases of the last 30 or so years have gone to the "rich".
[deleted]
You realize that if the rich paid the same percentage of their income that you pay, you'd pay drastically less taxes? And that a lot of your taxes go to the evil rich?
And if I just rob other people, I would get their money and not pay any taxes at all. So?
If you were robbing people and paying no taxes I'd want the government to do something about it. Likewise when the rich rob everyone and pay no taxes I want the government to do something about it.
[deleted]
Por que no los dos?
One is the hand, the other the wallet.
One is the hand, the other the wallet.
Taxes are lower now than at any point in the last 100 years.
[deleted]
It's called Shadowrun. You're living it. The only thing missing is corporation-states and those are coming fast.
Some are missing the point, most of the work we as software developers does not need long hours but deep focus. The best of the best are able to have 4 hours worth of deep focus, and we are lucky to get an hour or two of it. That would be huge. So the good habits that help us with focus and emphasizes on recovery like walking in the woods (our natural habitat), meditation etc. Its not the time, the hardware of brain is pretty much fixed, its the software, habits and mindset that make the difference.
On the same point, this is one of my primary frustrations as a sysadmin, because sometimes I need to be available lickety-split, but sometimes I need to be in deep focus mode, but my office environment isn't very conducive to deep focus mode... so sometimes I have to disappear myself to a hidden place just to get some thinking in.
Or, what happens more often, is that my productivity suffers and I end up staying late till everyone has gone away so I can actually not be interrupted.
Also, I really don't like shared open office spaces, and as a vet with ptsd, I really don't like having my back turned to the door, but management wants to be able to see everyones screen as they walk by.
While we are talking about overworked, the other issue that bugs me is disparity in expected work vs pay. To me, employment is a contract of goods and services. You pay me money to get a job done at a certain level. If you want me to be superman, you better pay me more like it! Instead, I continually hear the guys who have worked at a place more than 15 years say "You have to put in the work and effort and then hope they give you that raise, perk, etc...".
I don't think the baby-boomer generation realizes that there is no such thing as company loyalty in the big scheme of things anymore, especially in an at-will state. I'm tired of employees bending over backwards because they bring no power to the negotiating table on just about anything. I have a personal life and identity that is completely separate from work and I intend to keep it that way. If you pay me enough I would reconsider my work life balance, but I'm not going to do it for free and hope for it, it needs to be a deal struck in agreement between both parties and in contract form.
If there is one thing I could encourage we teach IT workers, it's the power of learning how contract law works, and all the stuff that comes with that. (eg: no you don't have to sign that, yes you can amend it, no that TOS is bad and unenforceable, that falls under the UCC, etc)
Or, what happens more often, is that my productivity suffers and I end up staying late till everyone has gone away so I can actually not be interrupted.
Also, I really don't like shared open office spaces, and as a vet with ptsd, I really don't like having my back turned to the door, but management wants to be able to see everyones screen as they walk by.
While we are talking about overworked, the other issue that bugs me is disparity in expected work vs pay. To me, employment is a contract of goods and services. You pay me money to get a job done at a certain level. If you want me to be superman, you better pay me more like it! Instead, I continually hear the guys who have worked at a place more than 15 years say "You have to put in the work and effort and then hope they give you that raise, perk, etc...".
I don't think the baby-boomer generation realizes that there is no such thing as company loyalty in the big scheme of things anymore, especially in an at-will state. I'm tired of employees bending over backwards because they bring no power to the negotiating table on just about anything. I have a personal life and identity that is completely separate from work and I intend to keep it that way. If you pay me enough I would reconsider my work life balance, but I'm not going to do it for free and hope for it, it needs to be a deal struck in agreement between both parties and in contract form.
If there is one thing I could encourage we teach IT workers, it's the power of learning how contract law works, and all the stuff that comes with that. (eg: no you don't have to sign that, yes you can amend it, no that TOS is bad and unenforceable, that falls under the UCC, etc)
> You pay me money to get a job done at a certain level. If you want me to be superman, you better pay me more like it! Instead, I continually hear the guys who have worked at a place more than 15 years say "You have to put in the work and effort and then hope they give you that raise, perk, etc...".
As Jay-Z put it: You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.
As Jay-Z put it: You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.
management wants to be able to see everyones screen as they walk by
Jesus! Are you serious? Do they have a good reason or is it literally to keep an eye on everyone to make sure they are working?
If it's the latter, I'd suggest looking for a new job.
Whenever I take a "brain rest" at work, I'm surfing the net and often it's Hacker News. My boss (and her boss) have often walked in, looked at the screen and asked me if I'm reading something interesting.
My company's culture is basically "get your work done, otherwise I don't care how you spend you time".
Jesus! Are you serious? Do they have a good reason or is it literally to keep an eye on everyone to make sure they are working?
If it's the latter, I'd suggest looking for a new job.
Whenever I take a "brain rest" at work, I'm surfing the net and often it's Hacker News. My boss (and her boss) have often walked in, looked at the screen and asked me if I'm reading something interesting.
My company's culture is basically "get your work done, otherwise I don't care how you spend you time".
>I don't think the baby-boomer generation realizes that there is no such thing as company loyalty in the big scheme of things anymore, especially in an at-will state.
I very much doubt this is true. It was the baby boomers who bore the brunt of the new paradigm in the '70s and '80s. By the time gen-X entered the workforce you had to be a bit delusional to think your employer saw you as anything other than an expense to be minimized.
I very much doubt this is true. It was the baby boomers who bore the brunt of the new paradigm in the '70s and '80s. By the time gen-X entered the workforce you had to be a bit delusional to think your employer saw you as anything other than an expense to be minimized.
Any good suggests on where to learn how contract law works?
I would say start with some business law lecture series. I love the move from some of the best universities to put that sort of think online for free.
> I continually hear the guys who have worked at a place more than 15 years say "You have to put in the work and effort and then hope they give you that raise, perk, etc...".
This is just disgusting. The oppressed defending the unfair system that enslaves them while hoping, one day, to be rewarded and turned into one of the oppressors.
This is just disgusting. The oppressed defending the unfair system that enslaves them while hoping, one day, to be rewarded and turned into one of the oppressors.
Sounds like a line from Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.
>most of the work we as software developers does not need long hours but deep focus.
Most of the demands for long hours in the software business come down to the fact that no one wants to be the one to _organize_ things.
Instead of planning our work so the team knows what they are building, we go in two weeks sprints to build half baked solutions to ill posed problems.
Then we fight fires in production at all hours and feel like big heroes for cleaning up messes that could have been avoided.
Most of the demands for long hours in the software business come down to the fact that no one wants to be the one to _organize_ things.
Instead of planning our work so the team knows what they are building, we go in two weeks sprints to build half baked solutions to ill posed problems.
Then we fight fires in production at all hours and feel like big heroes for cleaning up messes that could have been avoided.
So "instead of" taking an annual vacation, one should limit their work hours to 48 hrs a week, organize their time better, and take up a hobby like knitting.
I've got a better idea. Keep the vacation and cut work hours down to 40.
I've got a better idea. Keep the vacation and cut work hours down to 40.
>I've got a better idea. Keep the vacation and cut work hours down to 40.
Pff, more like we should go to 35hrs with mandatory _paid_ overtime and also _increase_ vacation to 6 weeks.
And also demand reparations for all the stolen time. (Real pay hasn't increased since 1970.)
After that we can talk about taking it further.
Pff, more like we should go to 35hrs with mandatory _paid_ overtime and also _increase_ vacation to 6 weeks.
And also demand reparations for all the stolen time. (Real pay hasn't increased since 1970.)
After that we can talk about taking it further.
Welcome to Norway except for the bit about reparations, and it's 37.5 hours.
Here in Austria its 38.5hrs, 5 weeks vacation, and in June and December employees receive a doubled monthly salary ("vacation money" and "christmas money").
If it's anything like Norwegian "christmas money", it's just a tax accounting rule where you pay for it the other 11 months in year.
Still a huge relief come December, as is holiday money in the summer. It probably works as a huge benefit to the economy too, although I have no evidence to back that assumption.
> Real pay hasn't increased since 1970
It has, it's just been pretty shallow growth. That flatlined in the late 90's. And then fell to 1970's levels in 2008/2009
It has, it's just been pretty shallow growth. That flatlined in the late 90's. And then fell to 1970's levels in 2008/2009
I work 37 hours and I think that's too much.
> So if we need to work long hours, what can we do to recover?
Not work long hours? This is what unions are for (now, if we could just have one without dues/political contributions).
Not work long hours? This is what unions are for (now, if we could just have one without dues/political contributions).
I've long been a proponent for hackers to "disrupt" labor by reinventing unions. (And call them guilds, because hey it's a name that works on multiple levels).
On the subject of dues being required to pay for full-time guild leaders as brought up in the sibling comments, that makes sense. But could it be supplemented by crowdfunding and alternate pay models, instead of mandating a set price? Tiered membership? Freemium guilds? Free 2 Protest?
On a less semi-satirical level about startups, hackers already voluntarily contribute willingly to non-profit endeavors, namely open source projects, and sometimes causes such as Wikipedia/Wikimedia, the Internet Archive, even tech-related lobbying like the EFF, etc. Surely some could put that same spirit of voluntarism towards supporting their labor class.
On the subject of dues being required to pay for full-time guild leaders as brought up in the sibling comments, that makes sense. But could it be supplemented by crowdfunding and alternate pay models, instead of mandating a set price? Tiered membership? Freemium guilds? Free 2 Protest?
On a less semi-satirical level about startups, hackers already voluntarily contribute willingly to non-profit endeavors, namely open source projects, and sometimes causes such as Wikipedia/Wikimedia, the Internet Archive, even tech-related lobbying like the EFF, etc. Surely some could put that same spirit of voluntarism towards supporting their labor class.
Maybe unions (which are large monolithic organizations covering many employers) are not what I'm looking for.
It just seems that more startup engineering teams should engage in collective action, because in many cases, if the entire team left, the company would be crippled.
It just seems that more startup engineering teams should engage in collective action, because in many cases, if the entire team left, the company would be crippled.
The continued success of professional sports players unions supports this idea.
Well, just as methodologies such as Agile or programming standards are not controlled, per se, by a central body, but adhered to more or less by individual organizations, what if there was an agreed upon standard for collective bargaining for coders?
Like say in a company, you work with your direct coworkers (as opposed to members of a national or even regional union) to adhere to that protocol of bargaining when disputes with management happen?
Like say in a company, you work with your direct coworkers (as opposed to members of a national or even regional union) to adhere to that protocol of bargaining when disputes with management happen?
Definitely agree that there's an opportunity to modernise unions and remove potential corruption.
Has anyone explored trying it with a private membership app?
Has anyone explored trying it with a private membership app?
Dues are how you pay the folks who are spending their time working for your rights. Lawyers, administrative assistants, marketing... these are not cheap.
Abuses aside, you don't get the positive - that is someone fighting for your rights - for free, and without playing in the field of politics.
Abuses aside, you don't get the positive - that is someone fighting for your rights - for free, and without playing in the field of politics.
Why do you need all of that, though? Couldn't a private chat room for the engineering team to plan collective action be enough?
> Hey all, management's been asking us for too much unpaid overtime. Strike?
> Hey all, management's been asking us for too much unpaid overtime. Strike?
You must all be bound to supporting a strike (and to not working outside contract terms, for that matter), or there's no union. Wholly voluntary associations are very, very weak in many situations, and this is one of them. That weakness is pretty much why governments are a thing, for that matter.
You're gonna need legal. Professional negotiators would be good.
You're gonna need legal. Professional negotiators would be good.
If you'd like to bring pro-union propaganda to the table, I'll have to bring in some Scholarship and point out that the story was complex and as such more unions may not necessarily be a panacea: While unions did play a role in shortening the American work week to 40 hours, broader forces in the labor market played substantial roles as well, like a rapidly expanding economy, reduced immigration, and electrification. I will refer you to The Shortening of the American Work Week: An Economic and Historical Analysis of Its Context, Causes, and Consequences (Whaples, 1991). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2122588
"The eight-hour day was won during this decade primarily through labor market tightness (wage increases, manufacturing employment expansion, and curtailment of immigration)."
"The eight-hour day was won during this decade primarily through labor market tightness (wage increases, manufacturing employment expansion, and curtailment of immigration)."
No one thinks unions are a panacea. But a market without a single union is diseased.
Dues are fine, someone needs to pay for the people who manage the union (Bernie Sanders contributions could be considered dues for those who believe in his causes, me included). I agree that political contributions should be prohibited though (as well as corporate political contributions).
Political contributions are how the current labor laws came into being.
Abuse of said political contributions are another (but important) matter.
Abuse of said political contributions are another (but important) matter.
Lobbying and political contributions are two different things.
Funding is important, as we've seen with the Sanders' campaign, but grassroots efforts equally (if not more) so.
I think funding is the smaller of the problem: unions, labor, regular people need better tools to organize and hold their representatives (either government or union) accountable.
EDIT: If you're looking for a problem to solve, help build these better tools. Help people be represented!
Funding is important, as we've seen with the Sanders' campaign, but grassroots efforts equally (if not more) so.
I think funding is the smaller of the problem: unions, labor, regular people need better tools to organize and hold their representatives (either government or union) accountable.
EDIT: If you're looking for a problem to solve, help build these better tools. Help people be represented!
Why does the union need management? Can't we do it in a chat room/mailing list - for which there are numerous free options?
Why do businesses, nonprofit organisations, schools, governments, and complex multicellular organisms require management (or seem to benefit from them)?
Yes, there are some systems which work by emergent properties alone without central organisation, but the very fact that they're limited to specific areas, and are prominantly missing in others, suggests limitations to their effectiveness and scope.
Yes, there are some systems which work by emergent properties alone without central organisation, but the very fact that they're limited to specific areas, and are prominantly missing in others, suggests limitations to their effectiveness and scope.
Because when you have dozens or hundreds of union members, you need stuff to be organized, as in every organisation?
Unions are very differently organized depending on the country, their political leaning (or lack of thereof), their industry... For instance, it looks like that in the US, the Organizing Model[1] is prevalent, which means that a large workforce has to be employed by the union
From the media, it seems to me that unions in the US are generally less politically organized than in Europe. For instance in France, unions are almost always politicaly leaning in one way or another, from CNT ("anarchist" union), CGT (historically linked to the french Communist Party) and CFTC or FO (historically split from CGT by anti-communist organisations) and going sometimes to the right end of the political spectrum such as Alliance/CFE-CGC (french readers please forgive my broad simplification, I do know that it's much more complicated than my summary...). My limited knowledge of trade unions in Belgium and Spain comes to a similar analysis
However, from how they are portrayed in the media, it seems to me that unions in the US are rather 'trade based', for instance "the" teachers union, or the truckers unions, etc. In contrast in France a teacher could be affiliated to CGT Education or FO Education (depending on their personnal preferences/political leaning), which are in turn members of a larger "confederation" such as the CGT. In my (very simplified) example, the "teachers CGT" and the "truckers CGT" can and do band together and strike/picket together when an issue impact both teachers and truckers. In my simplified example, CGT Truckers also strike in support to teachers during large movements.
Is this also a thing in the US? It seems to me that it's not the case?
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_model
Unions are very differently organized depending on the country, their political leaning (or lack of thereof), their industry... For instance, it looks like that in the US, the Organizing Model[1] is prevalent, which means that a large workforce has to be employed by the union
From the media, it seems to me that unions in the US are generally less politically organized than in Europe. For instance in France, unions are almost always politicaly leaning in one way or another, from CNT ("anarchist" union), CGT (historically linked to the french Communist Party) and CFTC or FO (historically split from CGT by anti-communist organisations) and going sometimes to the right end of the political spectrum such as Alliance/CFE-CGC (french readers please forgive my broad simplification, I do know that it's much more complicated than my summary...). My limited knowledge of trade unions in Belgium and Spain comes to a similar analysis
However, from how they are portrayed in the media, it seems to me that unions in the US are rather 'trade based', for instance "the" teachers union, or the truckers unions, etc. In contrast in France a teacher could be affiliated to CGT Education or FO Education (depending on their personnal preferences/political leaning), which are in turn members of a larger "confederation" such as the CGT. In my (very simplified) example, the "teachers CGT" and the "truckers CGT" can and do band together and strike/picket together when an issue impact both teachers and truckers. In my simplified example, CGT Truckers also strike in support to teachers during large movements.
Is this also a thing in the US? It seems to me that it's not the case?
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_model
> Not work long hours?
Consumers demand their new toys on a regular cycle. If one company doesn't keep up, another will. Too long not in the news and people forget about you.
The only way to stay relevant in a world with a thousand distractions is to keep making enough noise that customers pay attention.
If a product can be done properly in 16 months and ignored, or done in 12 months of way too many hours, and be a hit on the market, well the only damn choice is work 12 hour days.
Consumers demand their new toys on a regular cycle. If one company doesn't keep up, another will. Too long not in the news and people forget about you.
The only way to stay relevant in a world with a thousand distractions is to keep making enough noise that customers pay attention.
If a product can be done properly in 16 months and ignored, or done in 12 months of way too many hours, and be a hit on the market, well the only damn choice is work 12 hour days.
Sorry, but damn choice is to work 4 hours per day and be more productive than someone working 12 hour per day.
Your not going to remove the need to engage in the political process.
We don't need unions for that (and I certainly don't want unions either).
I work as an R&D manager/software architect and I simply don't work more than 40hrs per week. It just takes some self discipline and efficiency. My CEO doesn't argue with me about it because I do my job and I do it well.
However, if your employer expects you to work more hours than you get paid for, find a different employer who actually respects your time.
I work as an R&D manager/software architect and I simply don't work more than 40hrs per week. It just takes some self discipline and efficiency. My CEO doesn't argue with me about it because I do my job and I do it well.
However, if your employer expects you to work more hours than you get paid for, find a different employer who actually respects your time.
>>> So instead of having large breaks every few months or once a year, it’s better to incorporate simple recovery practices into your everyday routine.
Is this some Orwellian nightmare? Rather than have the workers do less work through holidays, let's have deal with the stress during their off hours. Don't take a 2-week holiday, just exercise more every day. Sitting at a desk all day isn't making you fat, it's that you're spending the hour between work and sleep with your kids rather than at the gym.
Some things matter more than productivity. Give your people the time off they need. Or how about just allowing employees to exercise and de-stress on company time.
Is this some Orwellian nightmare? Rather than have the workers do less work through holidays, let's have deal with the stress during their off hours. Don't take a 2-week holiday, just exercise more every day. Sitting at a desk all day isn't making you fat, it's that you're spending the hour between work and sleep with your kids rather than at the gym.
Some things matter more than productivity. Give your people the time off they need. Or how about just allowing employees to exercise and de-stress on company time.
Agreed, I'm kind of shocked people aren't seeing this for what it is.
Like the much ballyhooed open office plan, or the typical "we don't track vacation time" policy in modern startups, the real bottom line, so to speak, is always the bottom line.
It may very well be that employees who don't take vacations are more productive, overall than those who do. But by placing the burden of self-repair entirely on the employee, on their personal time and dime, the employer effectively washes its hands of the matter. If we take this article to its logical conclusion, burnout is your own fault, even in the face of pathological organizational structures, workloads, etc. That's an outward radiation of risk and responsibility par for the course in the new economy.
Like the much ballyhooed open office plan, or the typical "we don't track vacation time" policy in modern startups, the real bottom line, so to speak, is always the bottom line.
It may very well be that employees who don't take vacations are more productive, overall than those who do. But by placing the burden of self-repair entirely on the employee, on their personal time and dime, the employer effectively washes its hands of the matter. If we take this article to its logical conclusion, burnout is your own fault, even in the face of pathological organizational structures, workloads, etc. That's an outward radiation of risk and responsibility par for the course in the new economy.
This is an article from Australia, where we have 4-week legally mandated vacation time. What the article _is_ saying is that positive vacation effects only last a couple of weeks and that everyday routines can help you, well, every day.
> Or how about just allowing employees to exercise and de-stress on company time.
That's the key to the obesity epidemic right there. Have an onsite gym, and let employees take up to an hour off their normal 8 hours a day to exercise (or perhaps at a nearby gym, with some sort of oversight).
If you just give people that hour off, they'll be lazy and use it for other things, but if it's set aside specifically for exercise (or at the very least sitting their butts in the gym), it'll get done over time.
But it has to be unstructured and unforced. They can do it any time throughout the day, for as little as they want, but it will be no questions asked if they're in the gym (or out taking a walk or something).
And then group health premiums will drop, employee energy when they are working will increase, and they'll get just as much work done as they would have otherwise.
As a society we went from having mostly active jobs to mostly sedentary jobs. These sedentary jobs are slowly killing their employees. It should be the company's moral imperative to allow for exercise breaks during company time.
That's the key to the obesity epidemic right there. Have an onsite gym, and let employees take up to an hour off their normal 8 hours a day to exercise (or perhaps at a nearby gym, with some sort of oversight).
If you just give people that hour off, they'll be lazy and use it for other things, but if it's set aside specifically for exercise (or at the very least sitting their butts in the gym), it'll get done over time.
But it has to be unstructured and unforced. They can do it any time throughout the day, for as little as they want, but it will be no questions asked if they're in the gym (or out taking a walk or something).
And then group health premiums will drop, employee energy when they are working will increase, and they'll get just as much work done as they would have otherwise.
As a society we went from having mostly active jobs to mostly sedentary jobs. These sedentary jobs are slowly killing their employees. It should be the company's moral imperative to allow for exercise breaks during company time.
If anyone's interested in the tl;dr bullet points:
* At home have a sense of separation (psychological detachment) from work:
* avoid work emails at home
* incorporate a ritual like changing out of work clothes
* get fully immersed (no negative work thoughts) in a sport, exercise, volunteering, musical instrument, or other creative pursuit
* At work reduce nagging thoughts of "unfinished business"
* plan and organize your work day / develop a clear picture of what you can realistically get done during the day
* do not start a new task right before leaving
* take rest breaks, and seek out natural environments if possible,
* do not do errands on a breakAs someone who routinely has more work than they can finish in an 8-hour work day, the headline and article strike me as tone-deaf and victim blaming. It's simply not possible to solve the overwork problem entirely by 'good habits' alone. When you do a good job digging ditches, often your reward is a bigger shovel. When you do well, somehow more work finds it's way to your desk. I don't think you can always be finding ways to optimize when your workload is constantly expanding. Sometimes you have to get up early and stay up late to finish a project.
First, it's clearly talking about steady state, not emergencies. And if you're always in emergency mode these are even more important to know about in terms of the psychology...
Maybe you can't stop reading email or have time to go biking after work, but ten minute breaks to go outside scattered around the day? Creating a ritual to help your brain to switch from hard core work mode to resting mode?
It can literally just be a cup of tea when you get home. It doesn't have to be hours of time and energy, but the point that not doing so will cause you to become sick is certainly accurate.
But I think the point of the article was how to cope with overwork and reduce your stress, not to actually reduce your work load.
Maybe you can't stop reading email or have time to go biking after work, but ten minute breaks to go outside scattered around the day? Creating a ritual to help your brain to switch from hard core work mode to resting mode?
It can literally just be a cup of tea when you get home. It doesn't have to be hours of time and energy, but the point that not doing so will cause you to become sick is certainly accurate.
But I think the point of the article was how to cope with overwork and reduce your stress, not to actually reduce your work load.
>it's clearly talking about steady state, not emergencies
I'm also clearly talking about steady state, not emergencies--that's what I meant by "routinely." Yes, taking breaks helps and so do rituals but it doesn't make the work go away or let you get home any sooner. My point is that some jobs always have a backlog or glut or work to catch up on. Usually this is because the company purposely under-staffs the position/department. However, I don't see these systemic issues as something the individual can change. They can merely cope or find a new job--neither of which provide an 'answer' as they headline implies. Healthy work habits are great, but it's no solution to simply being overworked.
I'm also clearly talking about steady state, not emergencies--that's what I meant by "routinely." Yes, taking breaks helps and so do rituals but it doesn't make the work go away or let you get home any sooner. My point is that some jobs always have a backlog or glut or work to catch up on. Usually this is because the company purposely under-staffs the position/department. However, I don't see these systemic issues as something the individual can change. They can merely cope or find a new job--neither of which provide an 'answer' as they headline implies. Healthy work habits are great, but it's no solution to simply being overworked.
My take on this is easy: if you have the occasional overtime, sure I'll pitch in. If it's however a structural imbalance, I will not sacrifice myself for it. The tricky part is stopping to care to get things done in time, when it's a structural problem.
If you don't, it will eat you (eventually).
These points are spot on, but I also believe these are common sense things everyone knows. The issue is that its extremely difficult to detach from the digital world and many jobs require you be available at any time. A a previous job (they named themselves after a fruit) I couldn't even think about turning my phone off. I was pretty much on call 24/7. Companies are global, and there are always problems to deal with and any time of the day.
Yep, my company has the same tendencies. Some folks I work with have their phones configured for company email which I refuse to do. When I'm home, I'm home and it's the only time I have with my family. When they're all asleep and the wife is watching her netflix, I'll usually jump on the VPN but turn off email and IM so I can get real work done. Most of my days are sadly filled with meetings and email, the 30-60 minutes of extra work I occasionally do at home does wonders for my productivity.
While I understand your pov,why don't you flag to your boss if your feel you are spending too long on meetings and emails and find time during your actual working day to do that work. I'm a family man too and I've made a decision that any evening work except emergencies will be stuff I enjoy such as researching a new technology experimenting in code watching tech videos or reading tutorials not corporate "work"
I don't think everyone knows these things; particularly tricks like "don't start a new task right before you leave" took me probably a decade to figure out on my own. But I agree that disconnecting digitally is hard for a lot of jobs if you work on a project rather than small tasks especially, where half the work is planning, logistics, and coordination.
I definitely sleep so much better putting my phone into airplane mode about fifteen minutes before I want to go to bed though. That certainly seems fair all around, and means when I inevitably wake up in the middle of the night I don't see a pile of unread emails to deal with and get tempted to read them while I should be sleeping so I can be productive the next day!
I definitely sleep so much better putting my phone into airplane mode about fifteen minutes before I want to go to bed though. That certainly seems fair all around, and means when I inevitably wake up in the middle of the night I don't see a pile of unread emails to deal with and get tempted to read them while I should be sleeping so I can be productive the next day!
Yikes, kudos for enduring that. I've actually started to turn my phone off at night, and it's actually crazy the feeling of relief I get from that small action. It's like there's some invisible unbilical cord between myself and that device.
[deleted]
I have an idea. What if some startups began incorporating hiking and/or climbing (easy/moderate skill level) into their process ? You can find trailheads that have wifi at various waypoints. The team could plan challenges and expeditions that span multiple days, but instead of hiking all day like the pros they set a less grueling pace and hack more. The company could purchase gear, and could rent private wifi-shelters along the way that are stocked with modern amenities, tiki torches, rest rooms, ready-to-go-bonfire pit, gormet catered cuisine, and more. This way there really is a comfy environment to spend time resting and working (perhaps for more than one day) at each major waypoint. There could be pre-planned short nature hikes around the waypoint, and the team could engage a nature conservationist or an expert on the local geography.
I imagine that this kind of expedition planning could even be provisioned somehow as a service, so there might be a startup idea in there somewhere :)
I'm imagining a good way to ease into it might be first climbing the flatirons in Boulder or Stone Mountain in Atlanta.
I imagine that this kind of expedition planning could even be provisioned somehow as a service, so there might be a startup idea in there somewhere :)
I'm imagining a good way to ease into it might be first climbing the flatirons in Boulder or Stone Mountain in Atlanta.
From reading the comments a lot of people take a really negative spin on this for some reason. I only see it as trying to explain that if you rely on vacations alone then you could still be overworked and stressed. They only dim the symptom but does not cure the disease. If you are overworked and stressed a vacation might help in the short run but if you go back into the same routines, then of course you'll end back where you were before taking the vacation.
What they do advise instead is working on the disease itself and try to manage your day-to-day better instead of ONLY relying on annual holidays. They aren't saying you shouldn't take holidays only that they won't cure all your stress permanently.
I think this is good advice. Not groundbreaking or new knowledge, but still - good advice!
What they do advise instead is working on the disease itself and try to manage your day-to-day better instead of ONLY relying on annual holidays. They aren't saying you shouldn't take holidays only that they won't cure all your stress permanently.
I think this is good advice. Not groundbreaking or new knowledge, but still - good advice!
I always thought there was something wrong with me because I don't feel "recharged" after a vacation. Of course, sometimes a break is desperately needed, but there always seems to be a period of readjustment where work was harder than before I left.
You might get better organized daily and find a good hobby but vacations are important, especially if you spend it with some traveling.
A good hobby I recommend everyone that will help you totally tune out from your work is jiu jitsu.
>A good hobby I recommend everyone that will help you totally tune out from your work is jiu jitsu
Yes! If people only knew the type of escape that was possible, both mental and physical. American blackbelt Chris Haueter once recalled how he would eagerly drive hours to the gym in his shitty car, from his shitty job and shitty relationship, because he knew it would all roll off him when he hit the mat.
Yes! If people only knew the type of escape that was possible, both mental and physical. American blackbelt Chris Haueter once recalled how he would eagerly drive hours to the gym in his shitty car, from his shitty job and shitty relationship, because he knew it would all roll off him when he hit the mat.
Learning to escape is part of the mental chess, what jiu jitsu is.
Many people bring a bunch of sacrifices for the love the gentle art. :)
Regardless of how much time you you spend at work I think having a couple of weeks in a year for yourself to explore the world or be it just mindlessly staring at the sea waves is a reality check and time when you can evaluate whatever you are doing. It is also a good benchmark - if your current job doesn't allow you to do that then - is this a good job? Or you can't really afford to go at the other side of the world, then - am I being paid right? Go figure...
Vacations also can bring interest in your work back. I used to do freelancing and take off at least 8 weeks a year. When I worked I was really interested in my work and put a lot of effort in. Now I work in a corporation with only 3 weeks vacation and it's just one big long never-ending drag of the same thing again and again. The quality and creativity has gone down a lot. I just don't care that much anymore.
forgive me for saying this but the title sounds like an employer (or someone paid by industry) feeling bad about that employees are complaining they get no holidays. corporate ethics is the answer. not a blog article.
Everyone is overworked. We live in a post scarcity industrial world, or very very close to it, and bad actors have gobbled up the spoils of the huge gains in productivity in the last 50 years.
How much of the entire economy is predicated on grey money? How much of your time is indirectly consumed by this leviathan?
The more I think about it, the more i want to opt out of the entire fucking thing.