• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s less of a pain when the work you do is fun and interesting, but ironically when that’s the case you’re usually making even more money for someone else.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing wrong in making money for someone else, IF you get yourself decent salary and have interesting work.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I dunno, working in construction contracting has taught me that time in man hours is the ultimate pricing value point, that everything can be boiled down to. Someone who gives up their time should reap the most benefits. Someone who owns a business and pays others to work should be heavily taxed.

        Earning a bit more does help make it more palatable, but it still isn’t fair.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            A common saying is that a fair deal is one that neither party feels happy with, because neither one is taking advantage of the other.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think employees generally get such a raw deal that a fair deal would be refreshing and positive. However when you look at massively overpriced roles, eg consultants, they’d probably say it wasn’t fair to give them a fair deal.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I generally agree. However, I was curious whether you had any thoughts related more directly to one of the earlier comments, concerning how fairness, within the context of employment, might be described or evaluated.

            • MxM111@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which is what happens when a person is hired? Both parties are happy with the agreement, otherwise they wouldn’t accept, right?

              • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Most people do not have the luxury of turning down a job offer, as the alternative is hunger and homelessness, which the employer uses as leverage to underpay their employee.

                If housing and basic food staples were a human right (free) only then would you see fair wages in the open market, as people would have the option to turn down unfair jobs, forcing the employer to make them fair or hire no one.

                  • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Based on you own thinking, what would you understand as the attributes of a relationship or agreement that may be considered fair?

                  • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well, for one; Wages keeping up with inflation and productivity would go a long way to being more fair.

                    But I’m curious why you’re asking me what is fair, I already laid that out in my second paragraph in my previous comment. As I said, if the absolute basics to living were freely available, people would be free to reject unfair offers, and thus, in a theoretical ‘free market’ wages and benefits would increase to a truly fair and equal level.

              • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, everyone loves their job and is happy with their pay for their job. You solved it bud, great work.

      • MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You make money for someone else in exchange for the safety of a consistent paycheck. Its like the old feudal system, in theory you are being protected in exchange for your labour.

        Of course in practise you are at the mercy of the company, and in the feudal system the protection you were afforded meant you needed to pay for your own armour and fight to the death to protect your owner.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Eh, I’d argue that can make it more palatable, but honestly I do think, at least in most cases (I can think of outliers), it’s generally pretty exploitative to profit off of someone else’s labor that they themselves are not actually wanting to do themselves, especially if the threat of homelessness and hunger is the prime motivator for the person doing the work. Like, it’s not really fair in the grand scheme of things.

        A simple way to fix that I guess would be if every company was a co-op. Since then everyone is profiting equally, and no one’s labor is being exploited for the exclusive benefit of another.

      • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you’re one of the lucky few sure. But then you’re kinda part of the problem. The vast, overwhelming majority of people on the planet work jobs they don’t really like just to keep a roof above their heads.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the issue, not if someone else makes profit or not. If nobody makes profit from your work, but you still work job you really do not like just to keep roof above your head, then what’s the difference?

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would someone need to work a degrading job simply to remain housed, other than because such impositions support the profit motive for landlords, lenders, and employers?

            • MxM111@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why do you think it is because of that? Do you think the temp agriculture jobs, for example, would suddenly become having huge payments if farmers, who hires temp workers, have no profit? Please consider that farming is subsidized in US, because it is difficult to make profits there. Or do you think that cleaners who work in non-profit organizations have huge salaries and interesting job?

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I doubt there could be much meaning found in the possibility that corporate farms “suddenly” would have no profits.

                Corporate farms are structured around the profit motive, which is supported by the claim they assert for exclusive control over certain plots of the land, and for exclusive ownership of the products from using such land. For farm workers not to be exploited, they must stop upholding respect for such claims. Plainly, their lives would be vastly better in consequence, as the full value of their products would be distributed among themselves, with no share being taken from them by anyone else simply from a claim to private ownership.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Are you sure? Whenever I feel gloomy, I seek company with corporate lawyers. I always feel uplifted by their distinctive mirth and cheer.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Walking barefoot on gravel is less painful than walking barefoot on nails.

      The greater difference is in being free.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      yes but a factotum is a person who does general, menial jobs, and Bukowski was writing about his (assumed true) experience finding work after being rejected for thrww1 the WW2 draft. (EDIT: typo)