That's a false dichotomy. It is possible to get a good IT job where you don't have to give up your life. It probably won't pay as well as one where you have to give up your life, but you know what? That's why those jobs pay so well.
If you have to give up your entire life to your company, does it really matter how much they pay?
Well, he actually got _more_ out of them this way. There is an axiom or some sort that says that a project will go to the deadline or beyond, regardless of how long it takes. He took away the deadline, and said, play whenever you are done. When he saw them playing, he would then say, "Hey, why don't you work on this other thing....".
It's shortly after this when employees learn to pretend to be working for a while after they actually finish.
When we have people who are starving to death and cant afford a place to live anymore, losing their jobs, dont have healthcare, and so on, what does congress do? Throws more money on expensive weapons to kill people. Just what we need.
I suppose they're thinking that if we kill enough people, then we won't have a problem with homelessness or starvation?
What I'd like to know is why, in the face of offshoring and job losses, the IT industry hasn't coelesced around a professional society or guild.
Because IT workers are in a very weak bargaining position, collectively. Something like this could have been achieved in the 90's, but it's far too late for that now.
Looking at your 401k and screaming about how life is unfair because you cannot do whatever you want, and live the perfect, uber-fullfilling life that Madison avenue told you was yours with the right investments, hair products and big ticket purchases. You think life is supposed to be fair? Wake the fuck up, and pay attention in biology class; nothing is fair about the world. It's juvenile to pretend that life is something that it isn't.
Exactly! We should look at the way nature handles things - if someone has something you want, you can't just expect to get it. You kill them and take it from them.
Yes, violent anarchy would be MUCH better than our current system
While those are certainly valid points, wouldn't it be fair to add that if people are living longer, they should expect to work longer?
Only if they're actually capable of working longer, and someone is willing to hire you when you have arthritis, can barely see (let alone drive), walk very slowly, and give people the creeps (a lot of people are put off by the elderly).
It's because it's cheaper, easier, and makes the person who came up with the idea look good for trying something new and innovative to improve morale (ignoring the fact that the idea doesn't work).
I read somewhere that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet basically ruined love for western civilization. We expect too much from it. We expect intensity, excitement, longevity, fidelity, etc.
If people expect longevity in marriage because of Romeo and Juliet, then they aren't familiar with the play.
If only we could lace the free food with something that sterilizes them, the problem should self correct in 3-4 generations. It would be even better if they could buy a drug that unsterilized an individual for what we'd think of as a middle class income of say $500-1000. If you can't afford that, then you don't have enough basic wealth to breed. Work more or don't ever eat our free food and you could have as many children as you want. It would work as well domestically for our welfare system.
Governments the world over would love the stuff.
I doubt they'd like it - most of the places where people are starving, the government WANTS them to continue to be desperately poor, so they are easier to exploit, and they cannot rebel easily.
In the meantime, the politest thing you can say about people who think there is a problem is that they are not familiar with the alternatives available to the workers, and they lack the basic grasp of economics that the only historically effective way to improve working conditions has been to reduce labor surplus, which is most effectively done by increasing number of jobs. (In a few cases restricting supply by unionization or its bastard cousin "professional certification" works too, yes, but simply growing the economy so jobs outpace workforce growth is much better as it does not restrict the freedom of individuals.)
Another option (not really an option as such) is the massive depopulation of the lower classes. The Black Plague had a very large role in destroying feudalism because the peasants that survived discovered that they suddenly had some bargaining power.
For what it's worth, I think it's not Democrats vs. Republicans or liberals vs. conservatives, but corporations vs. people.
Corporations are merely tools of very powerful people to achieve certain ends. So in reality, it's rich vs. everyone else - the same as it's always been.
Not if someone with a brain and vision runs the country and reintroduces the Rail Infrastructure, effectively cutting down Semi freight transport to short distance loop zones.
A brain, vision, and a whole lot of money and political influence to fight off the trucking companies and airlines who don't want to compete with rail.
Slashdot Mirror
The downside is that the company figures out you're trying to start a union before you've succeeded and fires the troublemakers (ie, you).
If you have to give up your entire life to your company, does it really matter how much they pay?
The "opt-in" will be part of the agreement to get service in the first place, thereby adhering to the letter of this promise, but not the spirit.
It's shortly after this when employees learn to pretend to be working for a while after they actually finish.
I suppose they're thinking that if we kill enough people, then we won't have a problem with homelessness or starvation?
If I had supernatural powers, I could get WAY more than a million AND still stay anonymous.
Because IT workers are in a very weak bargaining position, collectively. Something like this could have been achieved in the 90's, but it's far too late for that now.
I heartily concur. My genes are using me as a vehicle to spread themselves, and I won't be cooperative if they want to cause me detriment.
Exactly! We should look at the way nature handles things - if someone has something you want, you can't just expect to get it. You kill them and take it from them.
Yes, violent anarchy would be MUCH better than our current system
Only if they're actually capable of working longer, and someone is willing to hire you when you have arthritis, can barely see (let alone drive), walk very slowly, and give people the creeps (a lot of people are put off by the elderly).
Spammers will now alter their programs to start with "z" and numbers, so they can get the people who aren't as desensitized by spam.
It's because it's cheaper, easier, and makes the person who came up with the idea look good for trying something new and innovative to improve morale (ignoring the fact that the idea doesn't work).
How about this:
Wife #12 - Chop, chop
Wife #13 - Dig, dig
If people expect longevity in marriage because of Romeo and Juliet, then they aren't familiar with the play.
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Or, you disagree with the policies of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. They send men to shoot you.
You're a fool if you think corporations can't hurt you without your consent.
I doubt they'd like it - most of the places where people are starving, the government WANTS them to continue to be desperately poor, so they are easier to exploit, and they cannot rebel easily.
It's worse - the Nazis, at least in part, got the idea from the US.
I've gone to the doctor in recent years for exactly one reason - I can't prescribe drugs.
Luckily, I have a Trace Buster-Buster-Buster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE/
A cop explains how he gets people to confess
Another option (not really an option as such) is the massive depopulation of the lower classes. The Black Plague had a very large role in destroying feudalism because the peasants that survived discovered that they suddenly had some bargaining power.
Corporations are merely tools of very powerful people to achieve certain ends. So in reality, it's rich vs. everyone else - the same as it's always been.
A brain, vision, and a whole lot of money and political influence to fight off the trucking companies and airlines who don't want to compete with rail.
"Vote Libertarian: How could it get worse?"