Recent searches
Search options
I don't understand how can people complain all the time about how bad everything is, e.g. with bosses trying to force workers to work from office, but still support #capitalism
Not you, here, I know none of you does :)
I mean....I support capitalism. So there's that.
@AlexanderKingsbury OK, so what's your take on owners forcing workers to go back to the office? Do you think that it's their right as rich people to do it?
I don't think employers CAN meaningfully force workers back into the office. The best protection for the workers is alternative job options; a different employer can entice workers away from that employer by offering a better deal. It happens constantly.
@AlexanderKingsbury You don't *think* they can, but they do, and it already happened to an extend. 100% remote work is rare.
@AlexanderKingsbury The typical job offer in the emergence of capitalism was 6 days a week 12 hours per day. How do you think it got down to today's standard? Was it by competition and because some factory owners gave workers better offers?
Largely, yes. For example, Henry Ford (yes, I know he's not perfect, never said he was) wanted to offer his workers high enough wages that they could afford his cars. He wasn't mandated to.
@AlexanderKingsbury Haha, so why did they have to make it illegal for children to work then?
@AlexanderKingsbury Or for people to work 12 hours for 6 days?
You seem fond of giving two or three replies to every comment, even though they're all short enough to easily fit in a single comment. That tends to lead to broken conversations that are hard to follow. Any chance you can finish your thoughts before you click "reply"?
@AlexanderKingsbury Sorry, I will try to.
A lot of laws that were put in place for labor protections were put in place for perfectly valid reasons. I never claimed that employer competition is and always has been a perfect bulwark against problems. That being said, many abuses have also been the result of regulation, not the cause of them nor cured by them.
@AlexanderKingsbury For example?
For example, take the very obvious fact that many jobs where people work 40 hours a week they could easily do in 30 or 20. While that's nowhere close to the same caliber of problem as plenty of others that have existed, it's still an issue. Why would anyone arrange things in such a way? Why pay to keep someone in the office for 40 hours if you could get the same work in 30?
@AlexanderKingsbury I don't understand, what you mean. Remote work solves that. Just letting your employees leave early solves that. Which regulation is to blame for this problem?
No, no, remote or local, it's irrelevant. Why would you pay someone to work for 40 hours when you could pay them for 30 and get the same quality and volume of work? When they would be willing to work harder for less time in order to have 10 more hours per week to themselves?
@AlexanderKingsbury You can hire them part-time, you can just lower their salary to reflect the fact that the work is less (and have them leave earlier).
Yes, you CAN. Why is it so rare? Why do so many people prefer to work at least 40 hours a week, if they can get the same work done in 30?
@AlexanderKingsbury I don't think people prefer to work longer, it's just that most positions are full-time (open a job board and tell me how many part-time positions do you see). And the reason for this is the same as it always was: capitalists want to have the workers at their disposal for as long as possible.
So you think that employers are willing to pay 25% more on wages, one of their biggest expenses, so they can exercise some vague desire to have people around, doing no more or better work?
@AlexanderKingsbury They generally just find a person who is desperate enough to stay 8 hours for the price of 6.
Again, open a job board and see how many part-time positions are there.
Okay, so they're obviously not THAT profit-motivated; they're willing to pay a huge extra amount for some vague idea of "people are in my building".
Then why aren't they paying people to work for 50 hours a week? Or 60? Since extra time, even with no more productivity, is worth it to them, by your theory?
My theory, as I said, is that they generally just find a person who is desperate enough to stay 8 hours for the price of 6.
What's your theory?
My idea is that 40 hours is the legally mandated line for what constitutes "full time work".
Your theory revolves around the proposal that, for decades and across the entire nation, the vast majority of people are juuuuust desperate enough to work for 8 hours, but not 9! With essentially no variation between them.
And also that employers don't value having 25% higher profits with identical productivity.
@AlexanderKingsbury More than 8 is illegal, this is where the conversation started.
More than 8 absolutely is not illegal. You are clearly and plainly wrong about that.
@AlexanderKingsbury Depends on the country.
In which country is it ILLEGAL to work for more than 8 hours a day?
@AlexanderKingsbury I will quit this conversation here, cause it's going nowhere, as you clearly don't have anything to offer.
Please drop me a line if you even come up with an actual answer in defense of your claims.
Yes, a link to wikipedia. Did a Ctrl-F for "illegal"; nothing. Again, please let me know if you ever come up with actual proof for your claims.
Don't waste your time arguing with Alexander Kingsbury. I've had plenty of experience talking to them in the past and seeing conversations they've had with other people, and from them I've learned that no matter what you say or what argument you give they aren't going to change their mind. It's like arguing with a brick wall.
@Radical_EgoCom His final response made it all worth it, though:
"Did a Ctrl-F for "illegal"; nothing."
@Radical_EgoCom All of them are like that, aren't they?
Nothing but trolls. That's why I blocked him.