This is what I'm talking about. This urge to micromanage is the result of looking at employees not as people, but as faceless resources to be consumed. Well, environments that aren't designed to consume, but to support and guide, WORK BETTER. It's just true.
Anecdotal evidence isn't great, but I know my productivity didn't go up when people axed my break time. It went down, because I went from "Hi! Nice to meet you! Oh, you've got that "My telephone crapped out look... let me find what you need!" to "Welcome to Blahblahblah. Would you like a cellphone today? No? Ok." You burn out.
And it becomes more of a killer the more menial and/or repetitive your job is.
Double chortle at your sig! A veritable storm of chortles!
Seriously: Our weird vilification of employees wanting to live lives is really freaky. I mean, how many people have been genuinely sick, but afraid/unable to take a sick day? I know I have.
And what are they getting if I come in sick? Someone not thinking well, with a horrible sound coming from his lungs, a sick boss and other employees, and sick customers.
I think it would be interesting to see a system in which you were given specific responsibilities, instead of a schedule, and left to yourself when and how much time to finish them. You'd have an overall deadline, but more flexibility to set up your working times.
Of course, I'm talking about a humanely designed workload, not the current abuse of salaried employment to get loads of free overtime. I guess I've answered my own question here about where that would go in our current environment.
Humans just aren't built for eight hours of straight focus. It's just not effective. And the kind of companies that try to shoehorn you into "Maximum productivity" tend to just stifle you into mindless drudgery.
This is why Google's "Work 25% of your time on a project you choose" is so genius. It sets up an outlet for this that's also productive.
Either way, we need to get rid of the idea that employment means OHMYGODMYEMPLOYEROWNSMEIMUSTMACHSCHNELLALLTHETIME!!!
I've been at more places that fight with me over federally mandated break and lunch times (an especially sticky issue for a hypoglycemic) than not.
Also: Your example is diarrheal crap. The bankers weren't lazy, they were criminally fraudulent. Their motivations: not lack of a desire to do work, but ACTIVE DESIRE TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS PAST A REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE POINT. It's not that they didn't want to risk check, it's that they deliberately shuffled the risk around paper accounts so they could present the portfolios as better than they were. And given that many of those mortgages were sold under basically fraudulent terms, given hard sells to people who couldn't afford them, and jacked up to ruinous interest rates without warning, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's not primarily an entitlement problem either.
Free speech is a bad phrasing of the concept that political speech and opinion will not be punished. It's been mapped onto the obscenity debate by years of loose interpretation, but it's not really about that.
And free speech doesn't cover fraudulent and damaging speech. So, unless the student in this case was seriously outing her principle as a pedophile, not free speech. Libel.
Actually... No it fucking well doesn't. You don't actually have the right to say "That Count Fenring, he rapes children!" in a public forum.
Speech that is fraudulent and damaging is not covered under free speech. For good reason.
There are many legitimate free speech concerns in the U.S. today. MANY. But this case isn't one of them.
The issue here is whether the student is punishable by the school for offenses done outside of school time and property. I would say "No, this should be a straight up libel suit at a minor, deal with it that way." But it's just not a free speech issue, and talking about it that way will just make people less likely to take you seriously about actual abuses of free speech.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that minors don't actually count as citizens in several major ways.
They can't drink or smoke, they have no franchise, they can't serve in the military, they can't (barring legal emancipation procedures, which are FAR from common) legally disobey their legal guardian.
Minors are limited citizens. This includes their speech being basically controlled by their legal guardians (which includes the school for as long as they are at school).
Except that half the Libertarian platforms are against basic civil liberty issues (mostly women's issues, but then, their patron saint Ayn Rand is an incredibly misogynist woman). Look at, say, Ron Paul's actual stance on birth control issues. Terrible. Also, he's a doctor who used the term "partial birth abortion," which is a non-medical scare word invented by the GOP.
I just feel that:
This is an election in which we don't have the luxury of voting for someone with no chance to win. It's "get McCain out, or possibly avoidable wars and continued economic mismanagement on the epic, unsustainable scale.
Obama, despite not having a perfect voting record, has the best voting record of a candidate who can realistically be expected to be elected. He's certainly better than McCain, and honestly, anyone else is just going to be acting as a spoiler in this election.
Civil liberties are important. Incredibly important. But consider this: the current congress is held stalemated by Bush's veto. The man has vetoed more bills than any sitting president before him. I believe that part of the FISA decision was an attempt to get the legislature to govern these actions into place through Bush (who had stated that he would veto any bill without telco immunity in it) immediately. It's a compromise. Is it a good one? No. Does it add up to Obama being a GOP shill or overall worse candidate than "hopeless Libertarian 3b?" I personally believe no.
The man's no Kucinich, but he's at least got heart and brain in the right areas of the body.
At this point, realistically, our next president will be either Obama or McCain. This makes me sad, we really need hardcore reforms to demolish the two party system, but it's fact.
Thus, the "safe" route, in terms of not being ground under by what, by all accounts, looks to be another Bush-type presidency, is to vote Obama.
Is he perfect? No. Is he a combination of tolerable and able to win? Yes.
Ok. First of all: no libertarian currently running has a shot this election. Neither does Nader. Living in the real world, there is effectively a zero chance of this shake up occurring.
If you feel you cannot in good conscience vote for Obama because of a single point of principle, I don't see how it's ethical to vote for another candidate that you don't agree with. And the way you've set it up makes it clear that this isn't actually about making a difference in the world; it's about doing something utterly valueless with your vote and getting to treat it as a savvy political move.
If you want Obama to win, vote Obama. If you are actively against McCain, a vote for Obama is the only way to actually maximize your very small power to prevent McCain's election.
Note: If there's a third party candidate you actually support because you believe him to be the best candidate, go for it. I believe it would be best if everyone thought hard and voted their convictions. But if you're going to try and "game the system," at least think it out a little.
I don't quite see the virtue of voting for a third party who you don't believe in, as opposed to voting "Against McCain" by voting for Obama. Except that the second is more likely to be an effective move against McCain.
I mean, if it's either vote worthless, worthless, or evil, whichever worthless is most likely to block evil seems the best choice.
Personally, I feel Obama/Biden are the best choices running. But I'm just curious as to the logic here.
Actually, it's the companies of today that drive the economy, not some schmuck who arrives at the side door with a resume from a community college.
A) Even libertarians generally acknowledge that it's the consumer that drives the free market; they just don't think that there should be any regulation of the market's operation. And no, no-one is owed a job they're not qualified for: what they are owed is fair compensation and good working conditions if they ARE hired.
In practice, unions have created a crappy environment in the North American auto manufacturers, and closed the top provider of auto parts.
B) Of course, the auto industry in America has been destroyed: by bad decisions, competition from abroad, and mismanagement. It's hard to argue that they've been crippled by unions, given that the various unions involved have systematically caved for over a decade now.
Also, RE: "competition keeps things healthy." That's a meaningless buzzphrase which isn't applicable to the discussion.
I understand that quite well, thank you. It's just that Americans (not to exclude anyone, it's just the area I live in and work in) are currently in a situation where it's extremely and artificially difficult to earn a living wage. We live in a system where there is established and systematic inequity, and it's not the poor, sad businesses that are suffering.
When we're in a situation where pay raises have kept up with inflation, and where pay doesn't need a MASSIVE adjustment just to be reasonable, then I'll concede that it's equal opportunity. Right now, while either side can be wrong, in the large picture, workers need assistance across the board.
Also, let's not forget that Unions helped bring about the 40 hour workweek, overtime, and other such. They help even non-members when they have enough push to get labor-friendly legislation passed.
And yes, unions exert pressure (or harm, if you prefer) on businesses WHEN THEY'RE ON STRIKE. That's the effing point. Striking is a response to management harming the workers through failing to provide a decent work environment. If a business is "hurt" by a demand for a living wage, well, it deserves the pain.
Certainly it's possible to go overboard the other way, and destroy the ability of businesses to function... in theory. In PRACTICE, right now, businesses have more rights and power than the citizenry, and it's catastrophically not good.
I am pissed that he threw a personal attack at a person who asked a reasonable question intended to help him teach better. I am not pissed about homeschooling: I'm questionable as to its status as One-True-WayTM.
Also, way to assume that instructional talents and writing ability are always inherently linked. Writing a textbook and teaching a class are two separate skills, not always linked. Or are only polymaths allowed to play now?
A) I agree that homeschooling CAN be effective, I just don't agree that it is the perfect solution that it often is held up to be.
For one thing, it requires at least one of the parents to pretty much devote themselves full time to teaching the kid. Not a bad choice for those who can afford to make it, but not one that everyone can make, either.
For another: not everyone is capable of homeschooling. One of the reasons for the high performance of homeschooling in studies is that states generally have high standards that you must pass to be legally allowed to home school your children. For good reason, too.
And really... what the hell is up with attributing everything to pro-union bias these days? The number of people you run into actually connected with a teacher's union has to be pretty small...
Seriously: A) Homeschooling - not a perfect solution to the INCREDIBLY complicated problem of getting kids educated. In many cases, not a good solution. And, fyi, public school teachers build curriculums. So do private school teachers.
B) You kill your own argument by pointing out that "used the book as a foundation." He still used the book. He still needed the book. And why? Because a quality textbook is one of the most useful and powerful tools for both guided and self-directed learning. Because trying to learn anything without some sort of organized reference is maddeningly difficult. Because, I don't know, a teacher only has so much time with the kids, and they need more information than he can fit into one hour (maybe 1.5) per weekday.
Your argument (such as it was) demolished, I turn to motivation. What the hell is wrong with you? You see a question about relative quality of textbooks, and think "OHMYGOD, A CHANCE TO BASH TEACHERS AND UNIONS AND PROMOTE HOMESCHOOLING BECAUSE I'M THE SECRET LIBERTARIAN GOD-PRINCE!!!1!"
If you want to run an opinion blog, do so. But leave people who are trying to find ways to teach children better in peace, dude.
I don't buy the "the only motivations are power and progeny" arguments. For one, they don't explain history. For example, how the last Russian Tsar was a huge reformer, despite that weakening his power base, for one.
Humans are complicated. Any system that treats them as simple, say by reducing their possible motivations to one or two, is flawed by nature.
Just to note: My correction of the post correcting you in no way means that I don't disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Seriously: you mean to propose that the current thrust of censorship and control of discourse is coming from the Democrat side of things? I think you'll find that the primary actors in the various "Control your personal life" and "spy on you" initiatives are pretty much all elephants, buddy. Specifics include the propagandizing of the military by fundamentalist Christian doctrine, the Patriot Act, the telco immunity scandal...
Also, on a "WTF, Mate?" level, what exactly is strong AI captcha solving going to do for censorship? And what is the chance of us solving strong AI "Soon," given that we've been trying since the 60s and gotten... you know, nowhere much?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's talking about enlarging my penis, it's personal.
Mod parent the FSCK up.
This is what I'm talking about. This urge to micromanage is the result of looking at employees not as people, but as faceless resources to be consumed. Well, environments that aren't designed to consume, but to support and guide, WORK BETTER. It's just true.
Anecdotal evidence isn't great, but I know my productivity didn't go up when people axed my break time. It went down, because I went from "Hi! Nice to meet you! Oh, you've got that "My telephone crapped out look... let me find what you need!" to "Welcome to Blahblahblah. Would you like a cellphone today? No? Ok." You burn out.
And it becomes more of a killer the more menial and/or repetitive your job is.
Chortle!
Double chortle at your sig! A veritable storm of chortles!
Seriously: Our weird vilification of employees wanting to live lives is really freaky. I mean, how many people have been genuinely sick, but afraid/unable to take a sick day? I know I have.
And what are they getting if I come in sick? Someone not thinking well, with a horrible sound coming from his lungs, a sick boss and other employees, and sick customers.
I think it would be interesting to see a system in which you were given specific responsibilities, instead of a schedule, and left to yourself when and how much time to finish them. You'd have an overall deadline, but more flexibility to set up your working times.
Of course, I'm talking about a humanely designed workload, not the current abuse of salaried employment to get loads of free overtime. I guess I've answered my own question here about where that would go in our current environment.
Mod both parent and parent of parent "Thin, small lights of reason in a storm of insanity."
Up, for those who didn't get it.
Yeeeeeeah.... I call shenanigans, sir!
Humans just aren't built for eight hours of straight focus. It's just not effective. And the kind of companies that try to shoehorn you into "Maximum productivity" tend to just stifle you into mindless drudgery.
This is why Google's "Work 25% of your time on a project you choose" is so genius. It sets up an outlet for this that's also productive.
Either way, we need to get rid of the idea that employment means OHMYGODMYEMPLOYEROWNSMEIMUSTMACHSCHNELLALLTHETIME!!! I've been at more places that fight with me over federally mandated break and lunch times (an especially sticky issue for a hypoglycemic) than not.
Also: Your example is diarrheal crap. The bankers weren't lazy, they were criminally fraudulent. Their motivations: not lack of a desire to do work, but ACTIVE DESIRE TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS PAST A REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE POINT. It's not that they didn't want to risk check, it's that they deliberately shuffled the risk around paper accounts so they could present the portfolios as better than they were. And given that many of those mortgages were sold under basically fraudulent terms, given hard sells to people who couldn't afford them, and jacked up to ruinous interest rates without warning, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's not primarily an entitlement problem either.
But doesn't streaming video or audio fit the high-yield/bulk-transfer pattern as well?
I'm just wondering what method they're using to separate high and low priority.
Free speech is a bad phrasing of the concept that political speech and opinion will not be punished. It's been mapped onto the obscenity debate by years of loose interpretation, but it's not really about that.
And free speech doesn't cover fraudulent and damaging speech. So, unless the student in this case was seriously outing her principle as a pedophile, not free speech. Libel.
Actually... No it fucking well doesn't. You don't actually have the right to say "That Count Fenring, he rapes children!" in a public forum.
Speech that is fraudulent and damaging is not covered under free speech. For good reason.
There are many legitimate free speech concerns in the U.S. today. MANY. But this case isn't one of them.
The issue here is whether the student is punishable by the school for offenses done outside of school time and property. I would say "No, this should be a straight up libel suit at a minor, deal with it that way." But it's just not a free speech issue, and talking about it that way will just make people less likely to take you seriously about actual abuses of free speech.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that minors don't actually count as citizens in several major ways.
They can't drink or smoke, they have no franchise, they can't serve in the military, they can't (barring legal emancipation procedures, which are FAR from common) legally disobey their legal guardian.
Minors are limited citizens. This includes their speech being basically controlled by their legal guardians (which includes the school for as long as they are at school).
Except that half the Libertarian platforms are against basic civil liberty issues (mostly women's issues, but then, their patron saint Ayn Rand is an incredibly misogynist woman). Look at, say, Ron Paul's actual stance on birth control issues. Terrible. Also, he's a doctor who used the term "partial birth abortion," which is a non-medical scare word invented by the GOP.
I just feel that:
Civil liberties are important. Incredibly important. But consider this: the current congress is held stalemated by Bush's veto. The man has vetoed more bills than any sitting president before him. I believe that part of the FISA decision was an attempt to get the legislature to govern these actions into place through Bush (who had stated that he would veto any bill without telco immunity in it) immediately. It's a compromise. Is it a good one? No. Does it add up to Obama being a GOP shill or overall worse candidate than "hopeless Libertarian 3b?" I personally believe no.
The man's no Kucinich, but he's at least got heart and brain in the right areas of the body.
Is that the safe route?
At this point, realistically, our next president will be either Obama or McCain. This makes me sad, we really need hardcore reforms to demolish the two party system, but it's fact.
Thus, the "safe" route, in terms of not being ground under by what, by all accounts, looks to be another Bush-type presidency, is to vote Obama.
Is he perfect? No. Is he a combination of tolerable and able to win? Yes.
Ok. First of all: no libertarian currently running has a shot this election. Neither does Nader. Living in the real world, there is effectively a zero chance of this shake up occurring.
If you feel you cannot in good conscience vote for Obama because of a single point of principle, I don't see how it's ethical to vote for another candidate that you don't agree with. And the way you've set it up makes it clear that this isn't actually about making a difference in the world; it's about doing something utterly valueless with your vote and getting to treat it as a savvy political move.
If you want Obama to win, vote Obama. If you are actively against McCain, a vote for Obama is the only way to actually maximize your very small power to prevent McCain's election.
Note: If there's a third party candidate you actually support because you believe him to be the best candidate, go for it. I believe it would be best if everyone thought hard and voted their convictions. But if you're going to try and "game the system," at least think it out a little.
I don't quite see the virtue of voting for a third party who you don't believe in, as opposed to voting "Against McCain" by voting for Obama. Except that the second is more likely to be an effective move against McCain.
I mean, if it's either vote worthless, worthless, or evil, whichever worthless is most likely to block evil seems the best choice.
Personally, I feel Obama/Biden are the best choices running. But I'm just curious as to the logic here.
Well, let's dissect this.
A) Even libertarians generally acknowledge that it's the consumer that drives the free market; they just don't think that there should be any regulation of the market's operation. And no, no-one is owed a job they're not qualified for: what they are owed is fair compensation and good working conditions if they ARE hired.
B) Of course, the auto industry in America has been destroyed: by bad decisions, competition from abroad, and mismanagement. It's hard to argue that they've been crippled by unions, given that the various unions involved have systematically caved for over a decade now.
Also, RE: "competition keeps things healthy." That's a meaningless buzzphrase which isn't applicable to the discussion.
I understand that quite well, thank you. It's just that Americans (not to exclude anyone, it's just the area I live in and work in) are currently in a situation where it's extremely and artificially difficult to earn a living wage. We live in a system where there is established and systematic inequity, and it's not the poor, sad businesses that are suffering.
When we're in a situation where pay raises have kept up with inflation, and where pay doesn't need a MASSIVE adjustment just to be reasonable, then I'll concede that it's equal opportunity. Right now, while either side can be wrong, in the large picture, workers need assistance across the board.
Also, let's not forget that Unions helped bring about the 40 hour workweek, overtime, and other such. They help even non-members when they have enough push to get labor-friendly legislation passed.
And yes, unions exert pressure (or harm, if you prefer) on businesses WHEN THEY'RE ON STRIKE. That's the effing point. Striking is a response to management harming the workers through failing to provide a decent work environment. If a business is "hurt" by a demand for a living wage, well, it deserves the pain.
Certainly it's possible to go overboard the other way, and destroy the ability of businesses to function... in theory. In PRACTICE, right now, businesses have more rights and power than the citizenry, and it's catastrophically not good.
Is it more appropriate to bow or prostrate myself? I know what to do for gods, and for princes, but the combo is messing with me.
Seriously. Mod parent awesome and insightful.
Ahem.
I am pissed that he threw a personal attack at a person who asked a reasonable question intended to help him teach better. I am not pissed about homeschooling: I'm questionable as to its status as One-True-WayTM.
Also, way to assume that instructional talents and writing ability are always inherently linked. Writing a textbook and teaching a class are two separate skills, not always linked. Or are only polymaths allowed to play now?
A) I agree that homeschooling CAN be effective, I just don't agree that it is the perfect solution that it often is held up to be.
For one thing, it requires at least one of the parents to pretty much devote themselves full time to teaching the kid. Not a bad choice for those who can afford to make it, but not one that everyone can make, either.
For another: not everyone is capable of homeschooling. One of the reasons for the high performance of homeschooling in studies is that states generally have high standards that you must pass to be legally allowed to home school your children. For good reason, too.
And really... what the hell is up with attributing everything to pro-union bias these days? The number of people you run into actually connected with a teacher's union has to be pretty small...
Mod parent correct but unnecessarily harsh. I apologize for the venom, although I can't say it won't happen again.
Unkind, uncalled for, and incorrect to boot.
Seriously: A) Homeschooling - not a perfect solution to the INCREDIBLY complicated problem of getting kids educated. In many cases, not a good solution. And, fyi, public school teachers build curriculums. So do private school teachers.
B) You kill your own argument by pointing out that "used the book as a foundation." He still used the book. He still needed the book. And why? Because a quality textbook is one of the most useful and powerful tools for both guided and self-directed learning. Because trying to learn anything without some sort of organized reference is maddeningly difficult. Because, I don't know, a teacher only has so much time with the kids, and they need more information than he can fit into one hour (maybe 1.5) per weekday.
Your argument (such as it was) demolished, I turn to motivation. What the hell is wrong with you? You see a question about relative quality of textbooks, and think "OHMYGOD, A CHANCE TO BASH TEACHERS AND UNIONS AND PROMOTE HOMESCHOOLING BECAUSE I'M THE SECRET LIBERTARIAN GOD-PRINCE!!!1!"
If you want to run an opinion blog, do so. But leave people who are trying to find ways to teach children better in peace, dude.
I don't buy the "the only motivations are power and progeny" arguments. For one, they don't explain history. For example, how the last Russian Tsar was a huge reformer, despite that weakening his power base, for one.
Humans are complicated. Any system that treats them as simple, say by reducing their possible motivations to one or two, is flawed by nature.
Just to note: My correction of the post correcting you in no way means that I don't disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Seriously: you mean to propose that the current thrust of censorship and control of discourse is coming from the Democrat side of things? I think you'll find that the primary actors in the various "Control your personal life" and "spy on you" initiatives are pretty much all elephants, buddy. Specifics include the propagandizing of the military by fundamentalist Christian doctrine, the Patriot Act, the telco immunity scandal...
Also, on a "WTF, Mate?" level, what exactly is strong AI captcha solving going to do for censorship? And what is the chance of us solving strong AI "Soon," given that we've been trying since the 60s and gotten... you know, nowhere much?
Yeaaaaah.... I'm going to have to ask you to look at all the Scandinavian countries....
"Doin' it wrong" is not a basic component of government. There are more and less corrupt systems.