No One Cares Because Nothing Matters Anymore

[twocoach]

I mean, we're just arguing anectdoes, I suppose.

Either way, you're the one who wants to devise a system that is fair to both parties.

I think the burden, then, should be on you to come up with something.

Cuz so far you've called for a fair system then went on to shit all over workers and play the victim card for that poor exploited capitalist class. They got it so rough!

I don't want to devise any system as we already have a system. It's called "work where you choose to work under the terms you agreed to work under and if you don't like it then better yourself so that you are more capable of getting to work in a place that you like better".

[ousdahl]

This whole notion that entry level positions need to be sustainable as careers is baffling to me.

bro you're the one who wants to create a fair system.

Toward that end, I'd suggest somehow valuing worker positions less by how much an employer is willing to pay them, and more by how much value the position's labor generates.

Lots of employees pick up and leave their jobs for the sole reason of getting paid more somewhere else so again, why should that go only one way?

how does that only go one way? Lots of employers fire workers all the time for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. The only difference is, employees are supposed to still give 2 weeks notice if they move on, but not employers. You conveniently avoided that point, I see.

What also needs to be factored in is how easy it is to replace those employees. You can train a server at an average restaurant in a week or two and they can provide the same value as the person they are replacing. People don't like to think of themselves as replaceable but in most entry level positions, you really are.

yea, so if it's so damn easy to replace those employees, then why does management make such a big deal about workers not showing up? Just got find more! It's so damn easy!

Point being, It seems like a double standard to treat workers as fungible, yet also expect them to treat the job as some critically irreplaceable position.

They are called entry level positions for a reason. They are a temporary entry way into the labor market, not a career.

yea, they're called entry level positions for a reason. That reason, of course, is that employers will come up with whatever they can to justify paying you as minimally as possible.

but, again, double standards - if an employer is really gonna call a position entry level and just a temporary way into the labor market, then they also can't be too upset about not being able to keep positions filled if and when workers too treat it as some temporary thing.

[ousdahl]

I mean, we're just arguing anectdoes, I suppose.

Either way, you're the one who wants to devise a system that is fair to both parties.

I think the burden, then, should be on you to come up with something.

Cuz so far you've called for a fair system then went on to shit all over workers and play the victim card for that poor exploited capitalist class. They got it so rough!

I don't want to devise any system as we already have a system. It's called "work where you choose to work under the terms you agreed to work under and if you don't like it then better yourself so that you are more capable of getting to work in a place that you like better".

ok yea, but again, then employers should stop whining about it when workers do go find a place they like better.

[ousdahl]

I don't want to devise any system as we already have a system.

so we went from an argument for fairness to an argument for the status quo, I guess?

you know, the antebellum United States had a system too, but thank the lord some folks eventually stood up and suggested something other than "but we already have a system," eh?

[TDub]

This whole notion that entry level positions need to be sustainable as careers is baffling to me.

I agree with this. It is a strange line of thought.

[ousdahl]

"sustainable as careers" is a big leap, tho.

cuz here I thought we were more so debating not whether entry level positions should be sustainable as careers, but whether they should be at least worthwhile enough for a worker to otherwise just stop showing up.

I'd suggest maybe more positions would be treated more like careers by the workers if the employers treated the positions more like careers, too, rather than just entry level temporary stops. Maybe just maybe, if an employer makes it actually worthwhile to stick around, workers will stick around.

I'd also suggest that if a business model depends on paying the workers the bare minimum an employer is free-market-wise able to get away with paying, if not legally required to pay, it's prob not the most sustainable business model in the first place

but I also know those things may be at odds with the recent theme here otherwise being how this big bad workers are exploiting those poor little capitalists every step of the way.

[Deleted User 863]

This looks like a fun thread!

[ousdahl]

It really is!

Turns out, it’s the responsibility of the workers to not commit to entry level positions for too long if they actually want actual financial security or an actual career or anything

But it’s ALSO the responsibility of workers to commit unwaveringly to those same entry level temporary positions, cuz businesses otherwise fail if they don’t.

Gee, it almost sounds like all along the economy depends more than anything on the workers, and the wealth they create, rather than the capitalists who end up hoarding all that wealth anyway!

[TDub]

This looks like a fun thread!

you know the drill.

[twocoach]

This looks like a fun thread!

It's just a repeat of the same conversation from the Minimum Wage thread and a number of other ones. Everything I have typed here today I have typed here on a previous day and everything I have read here today I have read here on a previous day.

[TDub]

This looks like a fun thread!

It's just a repeat of the same conversation from the Minimum Wage thread and a number of other ones. Everything I have typed here today I have typed here on a previous day and everything I have read here today I have read here on a previous day.

yea...thats the drill.

Ask a question, ignore reasonable responses and continue flopping out questions, memes and fringe "discussion points". Continue this until people tire out from engaging in any further discussion. Claim the lack of additional responses is indication of moral superiority and put a check in a the "win" column.

Rinse and repeat.

[twocoach]

"sustainable as careers" is a big leap, tho.

cuz here I thought we were more so debating not whether entry level positions should be sustainable as careers, but whether they should be at least worthwhile enough for a worker to otherwise just stop showing up.

I'd suggest maybe more positions would be treated more like careers by the workers if the employers treated the positions more like careers, too, rather than just entry level temporary stops. Maybe just maybe, if an employer makes it actually worthwhile to stick around, workers will stick around.

I'd also suggest that if a business model depends on paying the workers the bare minimum an employer is free-market-wise able to get away with paying, if not legally required to pay, it's prob not the most sustainable business model in the first place

but I also know those things may be at odds with the recent theme here otherwise being how this big bad workers are exploiting those poor little capitalists every step of the way.

Anyone who isn't skilled enough to advance beyond an entry level position in their career is probably not an employee that most employers want to keep on the books long term. At the very least, their years of experience will lead to them demanding that they be paid more for the same work due to their experience and at some point, their experience will not be worth the higher salary demands. Does a guy who has been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 5 years really generate more revenue than a guy who has been flipping burgers there for 5 months? No, probably not.

[Mjl]

This looks like a fun thread!

It's just a repeat of the same conversation from the Minimum Wage thread and a number of other ones. Everything I have typed here today I have typed here on a previous day and everything I have read here today I have read here on a previous day.

yea...thats the drill.

Ask a question, ignore reasonable responses and continue flopping out questions, memes and fringe "discussion points". Continue this until people tire out from engaging in any further discussion. Claim the lack of additional responses is indication of moral superiority and put a check in a the "win" column.

Rinse and repeat.

I thought it was a good discussion between you coach and 99. Other dude's posts I don't see. I think I've got the hang of KCrim.

[TDub]

that's probably the winning move.

[ousdahl]

Dang. Is this the first time anyone’s ever actually foed me?!



For real tho. Kind of a bummer. But if I’m really bothering him that much, guess I don’t blame him.

Tho, if he really IS ignoring me, then there’s something I gotta go do in the war thread…

[ousdahl]

Anyone who isn't skilled enough to advance beyond an entry level position in their career is probably not an employee that most employers want to keep on the books long term. At the very least, their years of experience will lead to them demanding that they be paid more for the same work due to their experience and at some point, their experience will not be worth the higher salary demands. Does a guy who has been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 5 years really generate more revenue than a guy who has been flipping burgers there for 5 months? No, probably not.

thanks for the dialogue, twocoach. Enjoying the discussion.

regarding jobs like burger flippers, the distinction to make should be less "is the position entry level" and less "is a more experienced flipper more productive than a less experienced one," and more "how much value is a burger flipper to McDonalds?"

[twocoach]

Anyone who isn't skilled enough to advance beyond an entry level position in their career is probably not an employee that most employers want to keep on the books long term. At the very least, their years of experience will lead to them demanding that they be paid more for the same work due to their experience and at some point, their experience will not be worth the higher salary demands. Does a guy who has been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 5 years really generate more revenue than a guy who has been flipping burgers there for 5 months? No, probably not.

thanks for the dialogue, twocoach. Enjoying the discussion.

regarding jobs like burger flippers, the distinction to make should be less "is the position entry level" and less "is a more experienced flipper more productive than a less experienced one," and more "how much value is a burger flipper to McDonalds?"

McDonald's has already had that discussion and their answers are reflected in their pay scale. That's the point. If enough people stop taking those jobs at the offered pay scale then they have the discussion again and make adjustments to what the offer to their employees as compensation.

[ousdahl]

Ah.

So what you’re saying is, burger flippers should strike.

[TDub]

if they had better employment opportunities elsewhere they would go...and they do, often.. They would be replaced by new employees...and they are, often. Strikes dont work on jobs that have the high turnover rates seen in fast food workers and jobs without "skill"....I know you get hung up on unskilled.....but...you can train a new person at McDonald's in a couple shifts. Its not like the corporation needs to keep these specific employees....any employee will do.

[Overlander]

This seems appropriate