|
B-Nasty posted:I don't know what country you're in, but I could literally walk out the door at work right now, and absolutely nothing bad would happen to me. I would, however, need to find something to do to put food on the table once my savings ran out. Which, is the whole reason why I won't walk out the door: we have an arrangement where I move bytes around, and they pay me enough money that I can easily obtain the base of Maslow's pyramid. Yes, I wasn't being literal, you've done a good job there of clarifying my point. What I'm saying, perhaps in language too dramatic for your tastes, is that any good job pales once you get a glimpse of what life could be like if you didn't have to burn 8 hours a day of it to progress someone else's agenda. If you could take that time to focus on yourself and those around you. At least that's my experience, maybe it's just me getting older, I'm not the least bit bothered if you're still able to ignore that call.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
slave to the rythm
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. Don't you worry that in your post-scarcity world, people will just whine and complain about "1 in 10,000 privilege" and how it's unfair technological breakthroughs are restricted to so few?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Eh, I'd still be working even if I didn't have to. The most miserable 6 months of my life were when I wasn't working and had nothing to do. I didn't have bills, I was provided for, I wasn't worried about money, but I was completely miserable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Eh, I'd still be working even if I didn't have to. The most miserable 6 months of my life were when I wasn't working and had nothing to do. I didn't have bills, I was provided for, I wasn't worried about money, but I was completely miserable. I agree with this. And furthermore I expect that in a hypothetical future where nobody had to work for a living, you'd still see people forming large organizations for the purpose of working together to achieve some (maybe completely unnecessary) goal. They might not necessarily get paid in money or amenities or whatever, but it'd give purpose to their lives. And they'd bitch about their rear end in a top hat leadership, and said rear end in a top hat leadership would abuse their positions of petty power, even though everyone could leave at the drop of a hat if they wanted to. Not everyone can self-motivate to the point that they don't need to join some larger effort to be able to maintain momentum in their lives. Going to work might be like going to the gym: sure, you can work elsewhere, and on whatever you want to, just like you can work out anywhere, not just at the gym. But you'll do a better job of maintaining consistency (and thus not spiralling into depression because you sit around all day doing nothing) if you join an existing organization and do whatever they decree is important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
The important part of the notion I quoted above is more that you wouldn't have to work for someone else. Plenty of people already elect not to work, or to pursue things that don't pay out a living wage because they really want to make artisanal puppets or be renaissance fair blacksmiths or whatever. And they suffer for it. And humanity suffers for the systems it has constructed. I don't mind writing code, but I'd much rather not have to work for a living so I could spend my days reading and working on personal projects instead of fixing some dickhead's spreadsheets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:The important part of the notion I quoted above is more that you wouldn't have to work for someone else. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:The important part of the notion I quoted above is more that you wouldn't have to work for someone else. Unfortunately I don't even think this is an argument worth having with most people anymore. There's a pretty clear divide between those of us who subscribe to this notion and those who don't and I don't see it changing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
I worry that this thread is drifting toward D&D, so here's an attempt to re-rail the thread: edit-- nevermind Love Stole the Day fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Aug 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:I worry that this thread is drifting toward D&D, so here's an attempt to re-rail the thread: I'm sorry to hear you're still having this issue. Is it the same when you apply to a recruiter proactively or is it just when you're applying to the employer directly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Where are you located? You should post your resume and let us look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:Unfortunately I don't even think this is an argument worth having with most people anymore. There's a pretty clear divide between those of us who subscribe to this notion and those who don't and I don't see it changing. What are you talking about? Not worth talking about "anymore"? UBI has more traction now than at any point in the recent history (maybe ever?), there are places that are actually trying it out. I'm not opposed to a UBI, I just think it would need to be very carefully studied and implemented to make sure it isn't going to cause huge problems in mental health or other social problems and make peoples lives and society as a whole worse than they already are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:What are you talking about? Not worth talking about "anymore"? Skandranon posted:If necessity === slavery, then you are a slave to the world. You need to eat, and food doesn't fall like mana from heaven. Get used to it, as the only way out of this world is to eat a bullet. A lot of people actually believe that, and believe that there's nothing we can do about it. A lot of people believe that "hustle" and "grind" are not just an ideology perpetuated by the rich to get others to work hard for them. A lot of people are idiots and not worth discussing UBI/universal health-care with anymore. I didn't mean UBI isn't worth talking about in general, obviously, Jesus. I meant that people who are against UBI and universal healthcare are pretty strongly rooted in their opinion that living your life to make someone else richer is objectively good. Good Will Hrunting fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:The important part of the notion I quoted above is more that you wouldn't have to work for someone else. Well, with automation stealing a lot of jobs in the coming decades we will find out very soon how will our civilization handle this. Will we try to improve everyone's life, to the point where nobody will have to work or will we fall in the other extreme where most will starve and only the lucky few will have lovely jobs working for the extremely wealthy 1%. Will wars and poverty be our future or will we be better than this? Unfortunately I don't think we will find a middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:I'm sorry to hear you're still having this issue. Is it the same when you apply to a recruiter proactively or is it just when you're applying to the employer directly? Good Will Hrunting posted:Where are you located? You should post your resume and let us look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:I worry that this thread is drifting toward D&D, so here's an attempt to re-rail the thread: You should definitely improve your LinkedIn profile, it's worked out very well for me. If you don't actually have a job at the moment though, or if you are not fully confident in your interviewing skills, you should still apply to jobs. The experience will benefit you. Everyone who has done well in their career has failed plenty of interviews. I can't count how many I've done that I could have done better, but I did better at the next one. The sooner you get your major failures behind you, the better. Good Will Hrunting posted:A lot of people actually believe that, and believe that there's nothing we can do about it. You're so sure it's not you that's ideologically possessed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:Applying to a recruiter proactively seems to be the default method of applying when you do it through LinkedIn, which has been where I've been finding things to apply to for the past few months. There doesn't seem to be any difference in results between reaching out to recruiters or reaching out to employers. Try searching on Monster too. For me half the results on each site are the same, but the other half are different. While you're at it, create a Monster profile - I get more contacts from people who saw my Monster profile than I do through linkedin. Since you've been looking for awhile, it's probably worth jumping through all the hoops to set up a StackOverflow profile. I'm in a contract position right now so I always keep one eye on the job market. Edit: You might also give https://www.ziprecruiter.com/ a try. I strongly dislike almost everything about them, but they occasionally come up with something interesting that the other two missed. LLSix fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:The thing that bugs me the most about the industry is how touch-and-go it is. Most jobs seem to last 2-3 years, and there isn't much potential for nice, long-term employment where I don't have to go job hunting three or four times a decade. Plus, the jobs that do exist are in an industry that has taken "fire fast" to a bizarre degree, to the point where it's difficult to trust that a company genuinely understands its needs and won't just change its mind out of nowhere after hiring you. Then there's companies that depend on the whims of VC funding, depend on a customer base and product that don't even exist yet, depend on a pre-existing market that would result in major losses if it left...it's like it's held up with sticks and stones. Come work as a developer in the manufacturing industry. There are a ton of jobs since the industry is moving in to what they're terming "Smart Factory 3.0. (help we need in house software developers)." The pay and benefits are pretty good, everyone will assume that you will be staying in your position for a minimum of 10 years (only silly gen-xers move around). You can wow people by just understanding that OOP didn't end after smalltalk, and that Visual Basic isn't the end all be all of easy to throw together CRUD apps. You won't be working with cutting edge stuff, but if you swing it right you can easily get the opportunity to pick your own tech stack to work with as long as you're willing to support it. Everyone I work with has been at our company for 20+ years or has been hired within the last 5 and has no intentions of leaving. They never flat out asked me if I was in it for the long run, but I've had people tell me "we wouldn't even bother hiring someone if they have a history of jumping around jobs every few years." Oh also they're all conservative Republicans so that's a thing...
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:You're so sure it's not you that's ideologically possessed? I'm pretty sure capitalism is working well for a lot less people than those who are suffering tremendously in poverty from it, but it's not like wealth distribution figures are something we can look up anywhere right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:I worry that this thread is drifting toward D&D, so here's an attempt to re-rail the thread: Last time I was looking at incoming resumes, the ones that came in through our "Apply Here!" website button were worthless. They seemed to be from real people, but it was always someone looking for an H1B who had no interesting skills or experience and sounded like they were throwing their resume at every company on the planet. I always felt like I'd wasted my time by looking at that inbox. On the other hand, it was pretty easy to ignore the obviously-garbage recruiters and the ones who were left saved me time (and I wasn't the one paying for them).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:I'm pretty sure capitalism is working well for a lot less people than those who are suffering tremendously in poverty from it, but it's not like wealth distribution figures are something we can look up anywhere right? That capitalism isn't perfect doesn't mean communism is the obvious answer. I'm pretty sure far more people suffered (and died) tremendously more under communism in the USSR, and this is also very easy to look up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
assert(!capitalism != communism)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:What are you talking about? Not worth talking about "anymore"? Skandranon posted:That capitalism isn't perfect doesn't mean communism is the obvious answer. You're either on the side of "yeah we can probably figure out a way to fairly distribute wealth from here on out and make sure less people abjectly suffer while still affording certain luxuries to others" or you're a selfish piece of garbage tbh. There is no middle ground. Good Will Hrunting fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:That capitalism isn't perfect doesn't mean communism is the obvious answer. I'm pretty sure far more people suffered (and died) tremendously more under communism in the USSR, and this is also very easy to look up. Who in this conversation do you think is arguing that a good way to reduce global work-induced stress and malaise is to blanket soviet communism over the world?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:That capitalism isn't perfect doesn't mean communism is the obvious answer. I'm pretty sure far more people suffered (and died) tremendously more under communism in the USSR, and this is also very easy to look up. Don't confuse a dictatorship/state economy with communism. Anyway, communism isn't what's being described here; it's socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:You're either on the side of "yeah we can probably figure out a way to fairly distribute wealth from here on out and make sure less people abjectly suffer while still affording certain luxuries to others" or you're a selfish piece of garbage tbh. There is no middle ground. You're either Hitler or Karl Marx there is no middle ground. Anyway. The obvious solution is regulated capitalism with a socialist safety net. Now lets go talk about emacs vs vim
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Editing text is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Last week Monday I gave notice, today an interview is scheduled for next week Wednesday. Interesting tidbits: After agreeing to see me and asking for possible time slots to meet, they ghosted for week. I called them and asked if there was a problem and the response was: "You need to drop 10% in price else we cannot hire you." So I wished them the best in selecting from the remaining candidates. Today they came back, apparently there are no other candidates and they want to meet. The project is not green-fields (as was suggested) but already well underway, I would be taking over from another developer who wants to work closer to home. Yesterday I heard this organisation has a high turnover at the moment due to a huge backlog and constantly changing regulations. All this is in an gov org that is tasked with socialist payouts in this socialist country. So I leveraged the scheduled interview by calling the other places who have my resume and telling them I would like to decide next week so can we put in an interview? I'll keep you guys posted. I was actually hoping to start first of March so I'd have some time off, but it seems all want me to start asap (provided I am selected).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Keetron posted:After agreeing to see me and asking for possible time slots to meet, they ghosted for week. I called them and asked if there was a problem and the response was: "You need to drop 10% in price else we cannot hire you." So I wished them the best in selecting from the remaining candidates. Today they came back, apparently there are no other candidates and they want to meet. If they're all out of candidates and you're the only option, it sounds like you should raise your price by at least 10% and probably more than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
taqueso posted:Editing text is pointless. Now you're talking my language. Keetron posted:Last week Monday I gave notice, today an interview is scheduled for next week Wednesday. Sounds like a giant vat of bullshit awaits. Though that said many orgs can't do hiring for poo poo and it doesn't always carry over to the day to day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:That capitalism isn't perfect doesn't mean communism is the obvious answer. I'm pretty sure far more people suffered (and died) tremendously more under communism in the USSR, and this is also very easy to look up. American workplaces are undemocratic. The places where people work being undemocratic is not a fundamental law of the universe. edit: Not trying to hijack the thread. I'm merely trying to help identify a reason why people, even in intellectually stimulating professions that could be fulfilling, are so miserable at work and why you will often hear advice from people to find happiness outside of work. If someone identifies with these reasons for their unhappiness, understanding can help deal with the unhappiness. I find Americans are trained not to think about these reasons. comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Roadie posted:If they're all out of candidates and you're the only option, it sounds like you should raise your price by at least 10% and probably more than that. Yeah, I'd love to but when I make a quote, I stick to it. Jaded Burnout posted:Sounds like a giant vat of bullshit awaits. Though that said many orgs can't do hiring for poo poo and it doesn't always carry over to the day to day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Is there like a meme generator for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:"we can probably figure out a way to fairly distribute wealth from here on out and make sure less people abjectly suffer while still affording certain luxuries to others" Who's 'we' and what does this 'we' consider 'fair'. While we're at it, what are 'certain luxuries', and who determines if my wants are actually luxuries. The whole point of my original post is that if you're a relatively experienced software engineer (oldie) in the US, you're already a 10%er or better. Just be aware that when you talk about removing luxuries from others, you're talking about yourself with your six-figgy salary in a rich country. If you're part of the oppressor class, you might as well put your money where your mouth is by donating the bulk of your salary to those less fortunate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
B-Nasty posted:If you're part of the oppressor class, you might as well put your money where your mouth is by donating the bulk of your salary to those less fortunate. This is like arguing that if you support higher taxes, you can feel free to pay more to the IRS at tax time. The whole point of agitating for social reform is to get everyone in the rich class to contribute back to society. It does little good if only the nice rich people give their resources back, because they're outnumbered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:What are you talking about? Not worth talking about "anymore"? B-Nasty posted:Who's 'we' and what does this 'we' consider 'fair'. While we're at it, what are 'certain luxuries', and who determines if my wants are actually luxuries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
You keep leaving off the second half of my quote. I didn't say there aren't people who aren't going to buy in to the idea, I said it has more traction than ever before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Soviet Russia was totalitarian and very undemocratic, but citing it has absolutely nothing to do with America being undemocratic. What do you mean by a "democratic" workplace?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 22:00
|
|
