[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/feels/ - Advice & Venting

Talk about relationships of all kinds, ask for advice, or just vent
Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Use REPORTS. Posting 'Mods pls' achieves nothing.
Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 09/13/2020

1444591978789.png

who /lazy/ here Anonymous 42644

I'm starting a new job soon but I really don't want to go back to work

Anonymous 42645

>>42644
You'll be fine at work, I started a new job recently and am really quiet during work but I really like it. I believe if you just push yourself you'll be okay!

What's the new job btw

Anonymous 42648

>>42647
have you tried finding something that you might be motivated in? Would something need to happen in your life to make you more motivated?

Anonymous 42679

>>42660
damn thats sad, try find something that you can get motivated even. Even forcing yourself to read can help, try wiki articles I like reading through stuff on them. Try cardio instead of working out as well, like going for a half an hour jog.

Anonymous 42694

>>42660
>there's no reason for me to do it
Idiot

Anonymous 42707

I am similar. I go on a daily walk and eat meals, but outside of that I basically just exist. I have a back injury though and am healing from that, so I guess I have an excuse.

Anonymous 42825

>got wfh job
>don't even need to commute, can wake up 10 minutes before "work"
>screwed around half the day and still did impressive numbers
>then started fuckign around 3/4 of the day
>then 7/8
>got caught when my numbers slipped really low
>made an excuse, now keep a tally of my numbers so I can do an acceptable range
>still fuck around 2/3 of the day, mostly on 4chan
fuck them. every employer i ever had fucked me over. now i get to do the fucking. and the reason i have this job is because they fired 2 people at the start of 'rona to cut costs, then realized they needed them, and they pay a staffing company 2x the cost to hire me for half of that as a wage. companies are disgusting and deserve to be robbed and lied to. they started this war on the worker, they wanted to take advantage of people, they violated the NAP. here I am. I'm being paid right this second. you get what you fucking deserve.

i fight for justice by being lazy.

Anonymous 42832

>>42825
Why not start a company and sell your skills directly if you're going to complain about them overcharging the customer? It sounds like you would be undercutting the market immensely by contacting companies directly.

Anonymous 42835

>>42832
>can't even get hired for a non-contract job
>lol just start a company bro
fuck off boomer. the "start a company" meme is so hamfisted. it's a huge financial risk and a guaranteed 80 hour workweek for years. people with no money to begin with and no contacts to begin with can't just to magically start a fucking company and be jeff bezos by next thursday. screw yourself.

Anonymous 42836

>>42835
>fuck off boomer. the "start a company" meme is so hamfisted. it's a huge financial risk and a guaranteed 80 hour workweek for years.
And? Is the goal to not work at all? Why not go on welfare?
>people with no money to begin with and no contacts to begin with can't just to magically start a fucking company and be jeff bezos by next thursday.
If your standard for success is being Jeff Bezos in a week, yes I think your goals are quite unrealistic. However, I don't think you need to be Jeff Bezos to be richer than you are currently. Furthermore Jeff Bezos did not become Jeff Bezos in the span of a week either.

Btw, I forgot to mention it, but let's address this for a second.
>>>42825
>>got caught when my numbers slipped really low
>>made an excuse, now keep a tally of my numbers so I can do an acceptable range
>>still fuck around 2/3 of the day, mostly on 4chan
Assuming their metrics translate to profits, you're not actually exploiting the company. You may only work 1/3 of the day, but in that 1/3 of the day, you are making the company you work for more money than they pay you the entire day. If you weren't making the company that hires you money, you wouldn't still be hired by them. Full stop.

The only way you actually exploit a company is by having a job they don't fully understand and have no metrics for, which is what I have and use my spare time to work on my hobbies so that I no longer need to be hired by this company some day.

Anonymous 42837

>>42836
>if you don't want to work 80 hours a week you are just a lazy neet
fuck off boomer not reading your trolling shite opinions.

Anonymous 42838

>>42837
Continue to be exploited then, making more money for people other than you.

Anonymous 42839

>>42825
>>42835
For someone who hates boomers you sure sound like one.
>what you gotta do is find one company and work for it for 40 years, only working as hard as you have to, do your time and get out

Anonymous 42840

>>42839
just because you can't read doesn't mean i said that. i've never worked at any company even 1 entire year. welcome to the gig economy.

Anonymous 42844

>>42840
The gig economy refers to people selling their own skills, not those getting whored out by temp agencies, which have existed far longer than the gig economy has.

Anonymous 42846

>>42844
>look at me, i'm the definition police, listen to my literally who opinion
no.

Anonymous 42849

>>42846
The gig economy is like having a gig, a cash-for-each-job with no long term contract, benefits or obligation directly between you as a self-employed worker and an employer or at least that's the fiction. In a temp agency the employer contracts with the agency to bring you in and pays the agency who then sends you in to work for a portion of that payment. You usually have a contract either with the agency or with the company you end up placed at which comes with all the benefits of being a real employee. There's a whole world of difference. One is being paid for each unit of work you do like a contractor without the clout and the other is being a salaried employee on a time-limited contract.

Though the idea that the gig economy is somehow less abusive then a temp agency is retarded. It's just a way to roll back employee rights under the guise of flexibility.

Anonymous 42852

>>42849
Being an independent freelancer is world's apart from being an employee as far as tax and money earning purposes for both parties. Yes, you're not getting the same "protections" that a company is legally obligated to give you, but if you're selling your skills your earnings are 100% your own as opposed to some middle man.

Anonymous 42853

>>42849
>t which comes with all the benefits of being a real employee
blatantly false. why are you speaking about something you don't know anything about? temp gigs are DESIGNED to screw workers out of benefits. my current slaveowner has a stipulation that you can't get holiday pay until 1 year of working 2000 hours (that is 50 weeks of 40 hour weeks. if you notice, that means no time off at all, no sick days, no holidays off, IE it is impossible to meet, especially when even when working with the same agency you don't get another contract immediately after the cessation of one, there is usually a few weeks of gap if not more.) so that is designed so they NEVER, ever, ever, ever, ever pay any worker holiday pay. health insurance, retirement contributions, and other benefits are similarly stipulated.

so if you don't know what you are talking about don't say anything. agencies for temp gigs are merely a way for employers to dodge paying benefits to anyone so they can exploit people and be criminal kike leeches on society.

DIRECT PLACEMENT is a different matter. that isn't what a temp agency does. it's right there in the name. the length of contracts are designed with dodging the benefits in mind. it's all a bunch of jewy little ways to screw workers out of compensation they are rightfully entitled to. burgerstan has ZERO worker's rights in effect. and mroe and more jobs are being converted to being run through temp agencies instead of companies taking a legal and financial risk to direct hire anyone. so, THE MORE YOU KNOW. worker exploitation is a real thing, thanks boomers for destroying unions and workers rights legislation. this country is a fucking dump.

Anonymous 42855

>>42853
>my current slaveowner has a stipulation that you can't get holiday pay until 1 year of working 2000 hours (that is 50 weeks of 40 hour weeks. if you notice, that means no time off at all, no sick days, no holidays off, IE it is impossible to meet, especially when even when working with the same agency you don't get another contract immediately after the cessation of one, there is usually a few weeks of gap if not more.) so that is designed so they NEVER, ever, ever, ever, ever pay any worker holiday pay. health insurance, retirement contributions, and other benefits are similarly stipulated.
I have worked at several permanent employers that have similar standards for this as well. This isn't special or exclusive to temp agencies. This is the result of a transient workforce incentivizing companies to force employees to actually stay if they want benefits.

Anonymous 42856

>>42853
Whether working for a temp agency or a permanent employer you are by definition being exploited since they're de facto paying you less than they sell your work for. It doesn't matter how hard you unionize, it doesn't change how the system fundamentally works.

Anonymous 42857

>>42853
Maybe your country is a shithole where you don't have rights but here when you're on a contract you've got the same rights as any other contracted employee and if they try to pull bullshit about it being different it hits the duck test and fails.
>burgerstan has ZERO worker's rights in effect
There's your problem.

Anonymous 42861

>>42855
hahahah that's hilarious simping for exploitative employers. that's hilarious. when they go out of their way to convert positions into 6-month long temp gigs. that's funny. simp harder. lick those boots harder.

yeahhhh surrreeeee employees just LOVE having zero job stability and zero room to receive training on new skills to advance their fucking career, which you can only get from existing employment and never new employment because new employment demands you ALREADY have experience in those skills. yeah sure. it's just the workers shooting themselvse in the foot and not the employer being a cheap ass slavedriving tyrant bleeding people dry and dodging benefits and worker protection. sure. you're a lapdog of these disgusting fatcats. take the cock of the exploitative mega corporations out of your mouth for a minute.
>>42856
exchanging labor for compensation is not necessarily exploitation. using exploitation to describe the state of ALL employment saps all meaning from the word "exploitation." stupid marxist, do you even understand you harm more than you help? do you even understand coming in and throwing feces and mud all over doesn't contribute to a discussion? no, you don't.
>>42857
>Maybe your country is a shithole
Yes.

Anonymous 42866

>>42861
>yeahhhh surrreeeee employees just LOVE having zero job stability and zero room to receive training on new skills to advance their fucking career, which you can only get from existing employment and never new employment because new employment demands you ALREADY have experience in those skills. yeah sure. it's just the workers shooting themselvse in the foot and not the employer being a cheap ass slavedriving tyrant bleeding people dry and dodging benefits and worker protection. sure. you're a lapdog of these disgusting fatcats. take the cock of the exploitative mega corporations out of your mouth for a minute.
Whether or not it is moral to do so and whether or not it is actually occurring are two different questions. I never made any moral judgement as to whether this is how it should work, but it is how it is currently working. A company is an entity that exists to make money, if the company is not making money it will cease to exist. I don't care to postulate whether this should or shouldn't be how it is, I only argue what is currently happening and explaining to you why that is.
>exchanging labor for compensation is not necessarily exploitation. using exploitation to describe the state of ALL employment saps all meaning from the word "exploitation." stupid marxist, do you even understand you harm more than you help? do you even understand coming in and throwing feces and mud all over doesn't contribute to a discussion? no, you don't.
It's okay to be okay with being exploited, but to describe it as anything else is a misnomer. Any line you draw about employment benefits isn't about whether or not it is exploitative, it's about whether or not it's too exploitative for your taste.

You go ahead and keep lining fat cats pockets though, if you "fight for justice by being lazy" the best fighter you could be would be on welfare. Your words, not mine.

Anonymous 42867

>>42866
>You go ahead and keep lining fat cats pockets though, if you "fight for justice by being lazy" the best fighter you could be would be on welfare. Your words, not mine.
Propose an alternative system that works.

Anonymous 42870

>>42867
I am again making no judgement as to how the system should be or should become. I am pointing out the inherent flaws in your thinking and explaining how capital in capitalism works. If you don't like being exploited it is your job to do the exploiting, if you don't want to do either and want it to end, exit the system.

Anonymous 42873

>>42870
> I am pointing out the inherent flaws in your thinking
I'm not even that other anon I'm just asking you to propose or even describe a functional alternative.
>if you don't want to do either and want it to end, exit the system.
Which is a fancy way of avoiding the question again and a stupid statement as well. There's no guarantee that ending it or exiting it will be any better or even less worse, no rational person will jump into such a situation without knowing the likely results.

Besides which you haven't really managed to prove the current system is inherently exploitative in the sense of being unfair. Sure there are many large companies coasting on the hard work of people from the past, which you could solve under hypothetical modified forms of capitalism, but there's plenty to be said for allowing those who develop better technologies or more efficient ways of working/living/growing food etc to enjoy some benefit from that. You could argue that the extra bit of value that's not returned to the worker is a small price to pay for the benefits of incentivising ever-improving technology and society versus stagnating in a fair society at or more slowly advancing technological level.

It doesn't even have to be stagnation: if a hypothetical non-exploitative system took three centuries longer to invent a coronavirus vaccine, say, than a decently restricted form of capitalism I'm pretty sure most people would consider the value that's 'lost' up the chain to be a fair trade-off for what they're getting. Now you can claim that other systems could also produce such advances but I don't see how since you're not even willing to describe a functional alternative. I'll take the developed world and a bit of wage working over dying in a field because I scratched my finger and nobody bothered inventing the means to mass produce anti-biotics.

Anonymous 42877

>>42866
suppose it never occurred to you that telling EVERY WORKER to just 'start their own business' as a solution to endemic exploitation is like telling telling everyone on the sinking titanic to just get in a life raft. only so many people can 'start their own business' and you shouldn't need to be the 1% of workers to manage to avoid poverty and systemic exploitation. it's doubly ridiculous because to start a business you need PRIOR experience, which means EVEN IF people manage to magically start their own business, everyone, all of them, to avoid exploitation, that PREREQUISITES that they already endured a decade of personal exploitation to begin with.

you are worse than offering advice. you are lording over other people's misery and suffering just to POSTURE about how clever you are for giving the boxed platitude of "start your own business". again, not only are you not being helpful, you are rushing to spit on someone who has already been spat on, just to elevate yourself. not only is your opinion absolute bunk, but your very motives in posting are malicious selfish and disingenuous.

Anonymous 42879

>>42877
I'm pretty sure she wasn't suggesting everyone become an entrepreneur and was actually advocating for some form of Marxist system without the intellectual honesty to provide a concrete target to attack.

Anonymous 42882

>>42873
>Which is a fancy way of avoiding the question again and a stupid statement as well. There's no guarantee that ending it or exiting it will be any better or even less worse, no rational person will jump into such a situation without knowing the likely results.
Did I say it was an improvement in the general sense? No, I made the statement that if you have a problem with being exploited, you must exploit, if you have a problem with exploiting, then you will be exploited, if you want neither, you exit the system. I made no predicates on the "quality" of life any of these options produce. The other anon can realize that she is in fact fine with being exploited, she just has a certain taste for what kind of exploitation she desires, or she can take a moral stand that she does not wish to be exploited, and do something about. Accepting or changing the situation intentionally requires you to be aware of it at least.

>Besides which you haven't really managed to prove the current system is inherently exploitative in the sense of being unfair.

It is by definition unfair. The company owner is making money off your work that is greater than the amount he gives you for your work. If your definition of fairness is that everyone should be precisely paid the worth of their work, then capitalism can not exist and be fair at the same time.
>You could argue that the extra bit of value that's not returned to the worker is a small price to pay for the benefits of incentivising ever-improving technology and society versus stagnating in a fair society at or more slowly advancing technological level.
Whether or not the exploitation is worth the results does not disprove that the exploitation exists. It just explains the immense amount of apathy towards workers struggles in the majority of cases because the current system provides many luxurious and benefits to those at all levels at the expense of workers.
>Now you can claim that other systems could also produce such advances but I don't see how since you're not even willing to describe a functional alternative. I'll take the developed world and a bit of wage working over dying in a field because I scratched my finger and nobody bothered inventing the means to mass produce anti-biotics.
What a Marxist perspective, you're aware enough to point out that Capitalism is an improvement over Feudalism, the divergence occurs when you assert that Capitalism is the best system as opposed to the current best system.

>>42877
>'start their own business' and you shouldn't need to be the 1% of workers to manage to avoid poverty and systemic exploitation.
Avoiding poverty and avoiding systemic exploitation are two different problems. You can be systemically exploited and not in poverty. Again your use of exploitation is about what is an acceptable level of exploitation that is going on, not whether or not it is going on. You obviously find exploitation to the point of homelessnees unacceptable but do accept meeting some middle management's demands for your productivity acceptable.
>it's doubly ridiculous because to start a business you need PRIOR experience
Having prior experience is a not a prerequisite for starting a new company. Your first time owning your own business will be the first time owning your own business regardless of what that business is. Working as an employee does not in anyway prepare you for what it is like.

>you are worse than offering advice. you are lording over other people's misery and suffering just to POSTURE about how clever you are for giving the boxed platitude of "start your own business". again, not only are you not being helpful, you are rushing to spit on someone who has already been spat on, just to elevate yourself. not only is your opinion absolute bunk, but your very motives in posting are malicious selfish and disingenuous.

And your's are selfless, benevolent and ingenuous Ms. "I fight for justice by being a part of the system creating the injustice"?

>>42879
I am stating that if you don't want to be exploited in a capitalist system and remain in a capitalist system, you need to do the exploiting. Either accept being exploited as something you're willing to pay or choose to not be exploited and all the negatives and benefits that it confers.

Regardless, as the other anon pointed out, the "gig economy" grows by the day. You're more likely to be self-employed than not if the current trajectory holds. You just may not like what being self-employed is like.

Anonymous 42885

Bordiga.png

>>42882
Forgot image.

Anonymous 42886

>>42882
>Did I say it was an improvement in the general sense? No, I made the statement that if you have a problem with being exploited, you must exploit, if you have a problem with exploiting, then you will be exploited, if you want neither, you exit the system. I made no predicates on the "quality" of life any of these options produce. The other anon can realize that she is in fact fine with being exploited, she just has a certain taste for what kind of exploitation she desires, or she can take a moral stand that she does not wish to be exploited, and do something about. Accepting or changing the situation intentionally requires you to be aware of it at least.
I wouldn't consider suitably designed capitalism outright exploitative, in the specific sense of being unfairly exploitative anyway, in the first place. At least not in the absence of a functional alternative to it that provides the same benefits.

>It is by definition unfair. The company owner is making money off your work that is greater than the amount he gives you for your work.

Only if you purely analyse it by function of money for labour in the short term and ignore any other outcomes over a greater period. You're ignoring any other potential benefits that come out of such systems.
> If your definition of fairness is that everyone should be precisely paid the worth of their work, then capitalism can not exist and be fair at the same time.
But that's not my definition of fairness at all, again at least in the absence of a better system.
>Whether or not the exploitation is worth the results does not disprove that the exploitation exists. It just explains the immense amount of apathy towards workers struggles in the majority of cases because the current system provides many luxurious and benefits to those at all levels at the expense of workers.
It's not a given you can term it exploitation if it results in benefits that otherwise would not be provided and given that those benefits outweigh the expense to those working to provide it. Exploitation has a very specific meaning and beyond just the dictionary definition it has rhetorical weight as well as does the use of statements like 'fat cats'. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

>What a Marxist perspective, you're aware enough to point out that Capitalism is an improvement over Feudalism, the divergence occurs when you assert that Capitalism is the best system as opposed to the current best system.

Please point out where I claimed it was the best system outright and not merely the current best or even least worst system.

Anonymous 42887

>>42886
What is your definition of fairness?

Anonymous 42890

>>42887
Good question. I probably can't give you a full definition but it's certainly got enough depth in it to handle the concept of longer-term benefits and abstract benefits for what seems like a short term unfair situation. So it's not short-term fair to have to work for less than the total value you provide but it's fair in the long term given the benefits such a system provides to both you directly and to humanity/society as a whole.

For example it's not unfair to pay a % of the value of your labour out now to pay for the pensions of others now given that you'll get the same from the next generation and so on. So the benefit I get out of the extra unpaid portion of previous generation's work incentivising the development of an overall better system of living offsets that which I'm providing forward even where I might not directly see the benefit my short-term unfair labour results in. The issue with the simplistic short-term 'all the value you create' concept is when you try to measure and correctly 'pay' for more abstract things like the development of technology or even the benefits future generations reap off of the infrastructure etc created by previous generations it falls down fast.

So again if you can describe a functional alternative system to handle this I'm all ears. This is a definition based on outcomes meaning a better method to get the same result would be fairer.

Anonymous 42986

>>42890
You've not given a formal definition of fair, thus I can't refute it directly. You will just continue to weasel around wanting the goods capitalism produces while having a vague notion of what workers deserve as an aside from their compensation.

>For example it's not unfair to pay a % of the value of your labour out now to pay for the pensions of others now given that you'll get the same from the next generation and so on.

You are mixing up the cut the government takes with the cut the business man takes. The cut the government takes could, as you've stated, be used to return value to the worker. Any pension the business man makes for his employees, in order for the company to be successful, must be worth less than the value extracted from the worker. Any pay, benefits, compensation, pension, or whatever given to an employee per contract must, per the needs of the system, give less money to that individual than that individual puts it. It must also therefore give out less value than that of all the employees that put into the system. The excess lines the owners pockets per how the system works.

If you want to argue that experience is a valuable, ask yourself what will that experience be used for? To get another job where you happen to get paid more, but someone else is still profiting off your work.
>So the benefit I get out of the extra unpaid portion of previous generation's work incentivising the development of an overall better system of living offsets that which I'm providing forward even where I might not directly see the benefit my short-term unfair labour results in.
The unpaid previous generations work is not just sitting in limbo, it's profit. It doesn't get paid in full towards future generations, it's what makes it so that a family of billionaires are created who retain billions in assets permanently. Yes I could agree there is a marginal improvement towards the majority of people, that marginal improvement towards everyone else is what makes his ownership over the company gain value to himself.
>The issue with the simplistic short-term 'all the value you create' concept is when you try to measure and correctly 'pay' for more abstract things like the development of technology or even the benefits future generations reap off of the
Again you are justifying the exploitation with what it can give the consumer and not the worker themselves, not refuting that exploitation is happening. Let's not even get into the fact that those "technological improvements" are in part made by Chinese slaveshop workers and African minor miners. You've simply stated that it is a proper way of being that some group of people form an under working class and should be exploited so that the rest of us can benefit from the technological improvements. If that is your moral stance that's fine, I am just clarifying what your moral stance is and what you must accept.

Anonymous 42994

>>42986
>You've not given a formal definition of fair, thus I can't refute it directly.
You've got plenty to work with there even if it's not complete. The person weaselling around is you, instead of engaging with the majority of my post instead demanding I define one part and focussing on the substance I'm actually giving while hiding behind 'I'm not judging the system or alternatives' and then clearly using terminology that does so.
>You will just continue to weasel around wanting the goods capitalism produces while having a vague notion of what workers deserve as an aside from their compensation.
As you accuse me of weaselling around you swap to claiming I only want the short-term goods the system creates and ignore the entire point about the long term benefit to society and the wider human race.

>You are mixing up the cut the government takes with the cut the business man takes. The cut the government takes could, as you've stated, be used to return value to the worker.

Do you not understand the concept of argument by analogy?

>The unpaid previous generations work is not just sitting in limbo, it's profit. It doesn't get paid in full towards future generations, it's what makes it so that a family of billionaires are created who retain billions in assets permanently.

I already said in this post >>42873 that there's a broken situation where generations coast along on the advances provided by previous generations. You could probably solve that with a capitalism system that was far harsher in terms of inheritance and so on though it's certainly not easy.
>Again you are justifying the exploitation with what it can give the consumer and not the worker themselves, not refuting that exploitation is happening.
Workers are also consumers unless you're living in a caste-based society.
>Let's not even get into the fact that those "technological improvements" are in part made by Chinese slaveshop workers and African minor miners.
Again I've said a suitably handled Capitalist system not one without limits part of which would involve not being able to exploit globalisation to avoid the law. And you can put 'technological improvements' in scare quotes all you like but that doesn't make them irrelevant and also ignores the point about structural benefits to society from more efficient production systems.
>You've simply stated that it is a proper way of being that some group of people form an under working class and should be exploited so that the rest of us can benefit from the technological improvements.
Please point to where I said this. You are the one suddenly introducing a further distinction between 'the rest of us' and some under working class then asserting they carry out the only valuable labour. Also I note again you claim I'm saying it's the 'proper way' as if I'm claiming it is naturally that way or should be that way forever when I have directly stated the opposite but I'll say it again for your benefit: this is acceptable only in the absence of a system with better outcomes not for any magical inherent reason.
>If that is your moral stance that's fine, I am just clarifying what your moral stance is and what you must accept.
You're constructing a poor strawman either out of dishonesty or a sheer inability to consider alternatives to your own ideology then demanding I accept its downsides.

Twice in a row now you've tried to put words in my mouth. And you've still failed to provide any sort of constructive alternative. We haven't even bothered getting into the fact that attempts to construct an alternative system so far have, in fact, resulted in technological/societal stagnation and eventual collapse (USSR most notably though obviously it also had leadership issues) or that societies which remained entirely fair permanently failed to progress beyond hunter-gatherer levels of technology for thousands of years while the rest of humanity developed actual civilisation. Now obviously those early systems would not be described as Capitalist and instead Federalist and before Feudalism other forms of unfair organisation but they would certainly fall into what you would call exploitative. I'm willing to believe that we will eventually hit on a better system possibly through automation or perhaps it's possible even now and we've simply not worked it but such a system is known and viable it's not really relevant.

Anonymous 43018

Society has proble…

>>42994
>I'm actually giving while hiding behind 'I'm not judging the system or alternatives' and then clearly using terminology that does so.
I am asserting what the current system is and how it works, not saying that the current system is good or bad. If you believe exploitation is bad, then the current system is bad. If you believe that the results of the system are worth the exploitation, then you believe the system is good. Either scenario does not refute that exploitation is occurring, just whether it is worth it or not. I don't care that people are exploited, it's others in this thread bitching about being exploited that don't like it and I am pointing out the hypocrisy in their logic.
>Do you not understand the concept of argument by analogy?
I do. Do you understand that what you presented was not an analogy but actually occurs?
>I already said in this post >>42873 that there's a broken situation where generations coast along on the advances provided by previous generations. You could probably solve that with a capitalism system that was far harsher in terms of inheritance and so on though it's certainly not easy.
The inheritance problem is a symptom, not a cause. If all you care about is the inheritance, yes, you can solve that in isolation. More forms of exploitation and "unfairness" will keep cropping up no matter what however, due to how the system inherently functions.
>Workers are also consumers unless you're living in a caste-based society.
Assuming the product they purchase is at the exact same cost as what it was worth. The worker is still losing out on the transaction as the deficit from the employment was never covered for the worker. A worker consuming his own work pays to do so through a middle man.
>You are the one suddenly introducing a further distinction between 'the rest of us' and some under working class then asserting they carry out the only valuable labour.
Then what do you mean by "we benefit off of the unpaid labor of past generations"? Unpaid labor that doesn't go to the worker but everyone else is inherently exploitative.
>And you've still failed to provide any sort of constructive alternative.
Pic related is you. I do not need to provide an alternative to explain how the current system works and why some may find it morally objectionable. I make no claims to understand if a better alternative even exists.

If all you care about is "well do something better", then I have nothing to put forward. I don't need to though, the system will run itself to death invariably is my position. I will continue to point out it's flaws to anyone that bitches about being exploited without understanding they will always be exploited if they are not doing the exploiting in this system.

Anonymous 43023

>>43018
>I am asserting what the current system is and how it works, not saying that the current system is good or bad. If you believe exploitation is bad, then the current system is bad. If you believe that the results of the system are worth the exploitation, then you believe the system is good. Either scenario does not refute that exploitation is occurring, just whether it is worth it or not. I don't care that people are exploited, it's others in this thread bitching about being exploited that don't like it and I am pointing out the hypocrisy in their logic.
Again you assert it's exploitation when I've already stated multiple times there's a bunch of extra weight behind the definition of and the rhetorical associations with that term that you must prove before you use it. A fair system is not an exploitative one and while current capitalist systems don't match up perfectly to what I'd call fair you could certainly construct one at least hypothetically. If you really super duper insist on your terminology just call what I'm talking about fair-exploitation or something then you can keep your rhetorical power instead of actually arguing for it but these are two different things and you're continually conflating them.
>I do. Do you understand that what you presented was not an analogy but actually occurs?
The point is it is not an unfair trade-off with pensions and by analogy it is not inherently unfair with other forms of delayed or even multi-generational benefit.
>The inheritance problem is a symptom, not a cause. If all you care about is the inheritance, yes, you can solve that in isolation.
Yes that was the point.
>More forms of exploitation and "unfairness" will keep cropping up no matter what however,
Yes it's not perfect so then you treat other issues as and when they occur as best can be done without destroying everything else.
>due to how the system inherently functions.
If we accept your definition of value only as a short-term labour transaction, your definition of it as exploitative and so on sure. You are leaping from the agreed fact that issues will occur to the conclusion that your explanation for their occurrence and all that explanation's outcomes are the only possible reason.
>Assuming the product they purchase is at the exact same cost as what it was worth. The worker is still losing out on the transaction as the deficit from the employment was never covered for the worker. A worker consuming his own work pays to do so through a middle man.
And I've already explained why that can be a fair system depending at least on how you want to define fair.
>Then what do you mean by "we benefit off of the unpaid labor of past generations"? Unpaid labor that doesn't go to the worker but everyone else is inherently exploitative.
I did not say the unpaid labour of past generations in terms of slavery I said the extra unpaid portion of labour or what you'd call the portion of the value they produce that isn't returned to them. You removed the word extra and changed the meaning of what I said. And you've cut out the second part of my sentence which states they were paid for it by the extra unpaid labour of previous generations and so on in a continual chain so it is not permanently unpaid. That makes three times you've misrepresented what I've said. If you want to pretend such things are not possible how do you intend to account for multi-generational benefits of labour not just in the sense of technology but in the sense of infrastructure projects and suchlike?

>Pic related is you.

Except you haven't even said 'we should improve society somewhat' or that it's even possible to do so.
>I do not need to provide an alternative to explain how the current system works
A theory on how it works.
>and why some may find it morally objectionable.
Some people can be found who'll find anything morally objectionable.
>I make no claims to understand if a better alternative even exists.
Then you need to explain why you entirely disregard outcome based morality if we're going down that path. If this system produces the best outcomes there are plenty of moral systems that state it is acceptable. To argue with these people, even if you disagree with them, you do in fact need to provide an alternative. Doing a bit of extra unpaid labour or whatever you want to call it now that results in thousands or even millions of people not dying in the future or living a far better life seems a fair moral trade-off to most people even before we account for previous generations doing the same for you.

>If all you care about is "well do something better", then I have nothing to put forward. I don't need to though, the system will run itself to death invariably is my position. I will continue to point out it's flaws to anyone that bitches about being exploited without understanding they will always be exploited if they are not doing the exploiting in this system.

Nothing of value but repackaging centuries old conjecture then.

Anonymous 43024

I treated my depression and I'm still lazy as fuck. I got better, but still no motivation to do anything. At this point I believe it's my personality trait.

Anonymous 43026

>>43023
>Doing a bit of extra unpaid labour or whatever you want to call it now that results in thousands or even millions of people not dying in the future or living a far better life seems a fair moral trade-off to most people even before we account for previous generations doing the same for you.
Whether something seems moral doesn't decide if it is or isn't. Furthermore, using this logic. You can say that slavery was moral because future generations benefited from the results it produced by supporting the economic system that helped keep people alive. Is your opinion that, due to this outcome-based morality, that literal slavery is moral too as long as enough people benefit from it?

Anonymous 43031

>>43026
>Whether something seems moral doesn't decide if it is or isn't.
I was accounting for the many different moral systems people might hold. The full statement includes also 'to most people' as most of the common moral systems people work under would accept that trade-off albeit for different reasons.

>Furthermore, using this logic. You can say that slavery was moral because future generations benefited from the results it produced by supporting the economic system that helped keep people alive. Is your opinion that, due to this outcome-based morality, that literal slavery is moral too as long as enough people benefit from it?

Slavery specifically actually results in stagnated technological and societal progress which is why at least in the context of American slavery the South lost crushingly in the Civil War. Also the slaves are not gaining the benefit of the unpaid extra labour of others from the past by being excluded from wider society thus it is unfair to them directly. And then finally that system existed at a time when there was a better alternative and I've already said repeatedly that the least short-term unfair system is the only defensible one.

Now we can obviously go down the full Utilitarian/other naive consequentialist/outcome based morality rabbit hole this way where you construct better and better examples and eventually we get down to one that's trickier or impossible for me to answer like that but the same rough argument I've made is also plenty compatible with more advanced forms of Utilitarianism. For example those that require universalisability once you account for multi-generational benefits, that is it must be possible to expand any given moral rule for everyone to follow the same rule without contradictions or loss of good consequences, and potentially other moral systems entirely as well. Pretty obviously you could not expand the slavery situation to everyone who lives and ever lived without resulting in a worse overall system. Now I'm sure you could eventually come up with examples for that too but fine any moral system eventually gets to extreme situations it cannot answer.

Besides which the issue is reversible in that any alternative moral system that refuses to accept consequences at all has to account for why you should ever care about the effects of your actions on future generations or on others who are not directly relevant to you and so on. Ones that take some account of consequences also have to answer examples like slavery, for example how would your system account for a situation where one generation's extra portion of unpaid labour would save millions of lives for future generations? Or you could just say it's never moral in which case we're back to where we started with regards to advancing technology and society and we're rapidly sliding into a debate about moral philosophy instead of the original topic.

Anonymous 43037

>>43031
>Slavery specifically actually results in stagnated technological and societal progress which is why at least in the context of American slavery the South lost crushingly in the Civil War.
I'm speaking of the wider history, not slavery after Industrialism. For instance the Roman Republic expanded it's economy immensely through use of slave labor. The technological advancements made by Roman's would be considered a positive benefit no? It would not have worked the same without slavery.
>Ones that take some account of consequences also have to answer examples like slavery, for example how would your system account for a situation where one generation's extra portion of unpaid labour would save millions of lives for future generations?
I have yet to make any assertions morally, if you want one though. In an individual based moral system all that matters is whether the individual can maximize benefit for themselves in the system. Any claim millions of unknown souls have on that person's work is irrelevant if you consider an individual to be a moral end unto themselves. In this instance it is up to the individual to decide if the best outcome for themselves involves benefiting a large number of mysterious unknowns, but to assume benefiting a large number of unknown person's is inherently a good thing is not proven.

Anonymous 43039

>>43037
>I'm speaking of the wider history, not slavery after Industrialism. For instance the Roman Republic expanded it's economy immensely through use of slave labor.
Fair enough.
>The technological advancements made by Roman's would be considered a positive benefit no? It would not have worked the same without slavery.
See the other two points I made and the comment about universalisable consequentialism. Like I said you can easily get examples, real or fake, that defeat naive consequentialism but they start to get more arcane when you deal with more advanced moral systems.

>I have yet to make any assertions morally, if you want one though. In an individual based moral system all that matters is whether the individual can maximize benefit for themselves in the system. Any claim millions of unknown souls have on that person's work is irrelevant if you consider an individual to be a moral end unto themselves.In this instance it is up to the individual to decide if the best outcome for themselves involves benefiting a large number of mysterious unknowns, but to assume benefiting a large number of unknown person's is inherently a good thing is not proven.

How do you prevent lying, cheating, stealing and even murder without applying the concerns of others as moral constraints to the individual? Not even with millions of unknown people but just with people directly relevant to their existence. You could add a rule 'no improving your own situation at the cost of someone else's' but ignoring how hard that is to apply in practice how do you handle classic things like the morality of leaving someone to drown because you don't want to risk your own life or something sillier like not wanting to get your shoes wet?

Unless of course you're happily talking about full on egoism in which is just consequentialism for you alone, in that case fine your system is consistent but also basically useless and barely counts as morality at all. It's also impossible for it to function if adhered to by everyone without agreement and acknowledgement that it's generally best to cooperate (but I might stop at any moment if the benefit is greater for me). Even if you make that agreement it wouldn't work for more than a few generations as there's no reason for anyone to care about what happens after they die.

Before we go down this road because really moral system arguments get old fast I'll say that obviously your own moral beliefs don't matter for our original topic but if that's the case you basically ignored the rest of my post and just asked about the moral element which I'd take to be resolved or resolvable.

Anonymous 43044

>>43024
Do you only do things when people tell you to?

Anonymous 43052

>>43039
>How do you prevent lying, cheating, stealing and even murder without applying the concerns of others as moral constraints to the individual?
Why are lying, cheating, stealing and even murder bad things to begin with?

Anonymous 43056

>>43044
Pretty much.

Anonymous 43076

>>43052
Depends who you ask. Some theories say it's inherently bad because that's how morality works or what god says. Others say it's bad because of the consequences it results in for other people. And a third theory where roughly I would sit would rely on something like the universialisability principle I was talking about earlier where if everyone acted like that the system wouldn't work. Now under your system people will eventually probably agree to cooperate in some areas since that's better for them than everyone fighting constantly so maybe it could work short-term but that leaves no good reason to ever develop anything longer term than one generation. Hell everyone might as well kill all babies at birth because they're just competition for the resources of everyone that's already been born. Or fish and hunt animals to extinction as long as that's only a problem after they die. Or permanently use fossil fuels and dump nuclear waste all over because who cares? It will not work long term.

You might not care about the success or even the survival of the rest of the species but that just makes you an evolutionary dead end and a failure as a life form. I'm pretty happy to define as bad anything which harms humanity as a whole even if how you define harm can vary from system to system. If your type of moral system had been the main one used in the past you'd either never have been born or you'd be living in prehistoric conditions since why bother with farming? Or childbirth.

Anonymous 43097

>>43056
When did you start behaving like this, anon?

Anonymous 43157

>>43097
A little before puberty I guess

Anonymous 43163

>>43109
>still don't know the difference between motivation, discipline, willpower and habits.

Motivation: The emotional response telling you "I want to do that specifically" as opposed to the myriad of other options. Not to be confused with "passion", the feeling of enjoying doing something. Motivation is what makes you say "I'm interested in being a photographer" as opposed to scientist, white collar worker, doctor, politician etc. It starts off broad and narrows down after you start working towards something.

Discipline: The mental ability to keep yourself on task during the not fun bits of whatever you are attempting to do.

Willpower: Meme, at best I could vaguely describe it as the emotional response to not let other's dissuade you from what you want to do. It has nothing to do with actually doing tasks in any meaningful way.

Habits: Literal actions you perform on a cyclical basis. "I always eat dinner at 6" "I brush my teeth before bed" "I go to the gym before work". No thinking or emotions involved.

Anonymous 43182

>>43157
What were you like before then, anon? Were you more free?

Anonymous 43577

1570664144182.jpg

Why is it to hard to maintain motivation and discipline, gals?

Anonymous 43583

>>43577
How hard has maintaining discipline been for you?

Anonymous 43587

>>43583
Extremely hard. I'm lucky if I can manage a week or two.

Anonymous 43589

>>42849
>In a temp agency the employer contracts with the agency to bring you in and pays the agency who then sends you in to work for a portion of that payment. You usually have a contract either with the agency or with the company you end up placed at which comes with all the benefits of being a real employee.
That's not how it works here at least (a Northern European country with generally good workers' rights).

First of all let's get something clear. "Temp agencies" is a very misleading term that perhaps had something credence in the past, but it's not what they're used for now. I used to work through a company literally called "temporary worker service" yet the work wasn't "temporary" in any meaning of the word other than the possibility to get canned at any moment unlike a regular employee. All my friends and other people I've come across who've worked through these companies say the same thing so it wasn't just an anecdotal exception on my part.

The company I worked for had maybe 500 employees, and about 10 of them were regular employees. I never had any contact with them. This wasn't seasonal work or a start-up or anything like that, it was almost a century old company that had solid business throughout the year. I was a temp, my boss was a temp, his boss was a temp etc. I met "temps" who had been with the company for 15 years.

Temp agencies are a loop hole in the labor laws used to NOT offer employees the benefits and job security that comes with being "a real employee". I assume it's because they were originally meant for what the name implies, temporary replacing people on sick leave or absent for whatever reason, and in that case it makes sense not to offer full benefits, but that's not what they do now. They're used as a "firewall" to separate the company from any liability or responsibility by not signing direct contracts with the employees.

Now you might say "well don't work through a temp agency then" (and I don't anymore) but the thing is ALL companies do this. Unless you're working for a mom and pop store with 3 employees (and good luck finding one because everything has been bought up and merged) you will have to work through a temp agency. Only people with highly valued skills can actually get a direct contract with a company. If you're a high school graduate (or even a college graduate) just looking to find work to put food on the table you will be a "temp" for the rest of your life even if you worked the same job at the same store year in and year out. And it's not like it used to be this way for low-skilled workers either, so there's no reason to assume the same won't happen for those more skilled professions later. It's a "first they came for the…" type situation.

>>42855
>I have worked at several permanent employers that have similar standards for this as well.
Here that would be illegal, as there are limitations to what a full-time contract has to offer, including vacation time. The temp agencies aren't legally hiring you full-time, they're just "mediators", so the same doesn't apply to them.

Also the contracts are designed to dodge benefits. Like the company I used to work through, they did offer medical benefits and good overtime pay but that's IF you met a certain number of hours. And guess what happens when you're getting close to the treshold? No more work. I would work 5 days a week every week until I almost met the requirements for benefits then like magic I suddenly wasn't needed for a few days and was told to stay home.

Same with overtime. They promised generous overtime pay but if you worked a double-shift on a Wendesday you better believe you weren't coming in on Friday. Your weekly workload is the same, no need to pay extra. None of this shit would fly with permanent workers because worker rights agreements prohibit it, but those don't apply to "temps".

Anonymous 43590

>>42873
Antibiotics were discovered by a guy working for a state-run university.

Also that was about the last human invention which actually improved quality of life, but that's a whole other discussion.

Anonymous 43595

I'm so lazy I keep disappointing everyone.

This is like the fourth time I built a nice relationship with a professor only to disappoint them when I get a mediocre grade on the final.
I'm starting to think school isn't for me.
I just cannot stand studying. I like doing things and being productive but studying for the sake of learning useless facts just doesn't work for me.

Anonymous 43601

Lpip.full.2494770.…

>tfw so lazy i'm heavily researching the stock market
if i can make at least $300 dollars a month to start off with, i'll honestly be gucci. that'll cover my internet bill + meds

Anonymous 43602

>>43601
A lot of people lose trying to play the stock market just watch the retards of wall street bets, they have various YouTube videos failing going bankrupt. Be careful.

Anonymous 43603

IA.full.2075354.jp…

>>43602
i'm too broke to be reckless anon, don't worry

Anonymous 43607

>>43601
It's pretty easy to start off with something like an IRA and index funds that pay a dividend. If you can find one that pays 5% annually, every $1200 you put in is $5/month for life.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]